The words and arguments chosen by the Supreme Court in drafting its order staying the implementation of the farm laws and entrusting a committee of four members with the task of submitting its report within two months are utterly befuddling.
#FarmersAppealLawsRepeal

While staying the implementation of the farm laws, the SC considered it necessary to declare that the MSP system would continue and farmers wouldn't lose any land. This clearly rebuffs the government claim that the laws would not hamper MSP or cause any land alienation.

But the concluding paragraph defies all logic. The para begins with the astounding clause 'While we may not stifle a peaceful protest'. Is stifling an option for the SC? Is the SC then suggesting an alternative mode of ending the protest. Stifling by other means, if you will?

The order says farmers should be satisfied with the perception of having achieved their purpose. Is the order then about perception management? About giving farmers the perception of a face saver while actually bailing out the government?

And why are farmers being advised to withdraw their protests to protect the lives and properties of others? Pray, whose lives and properties are the farmers endangering through their peaceful protests?

And how on earth did the apex court arrive at the composition of the committee? What are the credentials of the members that entitle them to be members of this committee? They are all known to be staunch supporters of the farm laws? What new things will they bring to the table?