By India Legal Bureau

India’s largest telecom operator Reliance Jio recorded a fall of around 20 lakh wireless subscribers in Punjab and Haryana in December 2020 amid the farmers’ protest, as per data of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI). Meanwhile, state-run BSNL increased subscribers in both states during the same month. Jio was the only large telecom operator to lose subscribers in both Punjab and Haryana.

Though it is not possible from this data to establish a correlation between the operator’s fall in subscribers and the backlash that the Mukesh Ambani owned Reliance has received during the farmers’ protest, Jio itself seems to believe that a “malicious and motivated campaign” is to blame.

Since its commercial launch in September 2016, Jio, which is India’s largest telecom operator, had reported a fall in subscribers just once before in Punjab. That was in December 2019 when all major operators but BSNL reported a fall in the Punjab circle.

In Punjab, Jio had 1.25 crore subscribers as of end December, the lowest in the preceding 18 months, falling from 1.40 crore in November 2020. This was only the second time Jio lost subscribers on a net basis in the state since its commercial launch; the only other month being December 2019.

Jio saw a decrease in wireless subscription numbers in Haryana to 89.07 lakh in December 2020 from 94.48 lakh in the preceding month, the first time the state has seen a drop in numbers since its commercial launch in September 2016.

An e-mail query sent to Reliance Jio seeking comments elicited no reply. In a statement issued after its December quarter results, Reliance Jio said: “Higher churn during the quarter at 1.63 percent due to continued impact of Covid and recent malicious and motivated campaigns against Reliance Group in select geographies.”

Though localised protests against the three farm laws have been going on since they were passed in September last year, protestors began converging at the borders outside Delhi by end November. Shortly after that, Jio started receiving port-out requests. On December 11, Jio wrote to the telecom regulator complaining that its rivals Airtel and Vodafone Idea were running “malicious campaigns” leading to the churn in its subscriber base. “These companies continue to remain directly/indirectly involved in supporting and furthering insinuations and false and frivolous rumours of Reliance being an undue beneficiary in the farm bills,” the letter said, adding that a large number of customers cited this feeling in port-out requests.

Many farmers began porting their numbers from Jio to its rivals such as Airtel or Vodafone Idea. This was because the farmers believed that large conglomerates such as Reliance Industries and the Adani Group would benefit from the contract farming laws.

After hundreds of Jio telecommunications masts were attacked in December, Reliance asked government authorities to step in. Reliance said that “these acts of violence have endangered the lives of thousands of its employees and caused damage and disruption to the vital communications infrastructure, sales and service outlets run by its subsidiaries.”

With Reliance continuing to face backlash from the farmers, the group issued a statement on January 4 saying that neither it nor any other company associated with it, including Reliance Retail, had ever carried out “contract” or “corporate” farming in the past and that the conglomerate had no plans to enter this business. The statement was issued after some farmer unions alleged that companies such as Reliance were “purchasing vast stretches” of farmland in Punjab and Haryana to undertake contract farming and establish private mandis. However, Reliance Industries said that none of its affiliates, including Reliance Retail and Reliance Jio, had done any “corporate” or “contract” farming. It also said that neither Reliance nor any of its subsidiaries had purchased any agricultural land, directly or indirectly “in Punjab or Haryana, or anywhere else in India, for the purpose of “corporate” or “contract” farming”, adding that it had no plans to do so.

Meanwhile, Vodafone Idea’s subscribers in Punjab rose from 86.42 lakh in November to 87.11 lakh in December. Airtel, which had 1.05 crore subscribers in November, saw its base increase to over 1.06 crore in December. In Haryana, Airtel’s subscriber base of 49.56 lakh in November 2020 increased to over 50.79 lakh in December. Vodafone had over 80.23 lakh subscribers, which increased to over 80.42 lakh in December 2020. BSNL also saw an increase in subscribers in both states in that month, according to the report.

Later, following vandalism of telecom towers and fibre cables in use by Jio in these two states, the company filed a petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking “the urgent intervention of Government authorities to bring a complete stop to the illegal acts of vandalism by miscreants”.

According to TRAI data for December 2020, Reliance Jio witnessed net additions in wireless users of 4.78 lakh users, while Bharti Airtel added 40.51 lakh users and Vodafone Idea lost 56.9 lakh users. Bharti Airtel Ltd. added the most active subscribers in 14 months as concerns stemming from protests by farmers in northern India affected Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd.’s customer accretion. The Sunil Mittal controlled mobile operator added as many as 5.5 million regularly paying users in December over the preceding month, according to TRAI. Reliance Jio added nearly 3.2 million subscribers, while Vodafone Idea Ltd. lost 1.5 million subscribers.

Bharti Airtel also led the market in active subscriber base. It reported 97.1 percent active subscribers in December. It was followed by Vodafone Idea with 90.26 percent and Reliance Jio with 80.23 percent. Only about half of BSNL’s mobile customer base was found to be active, while in the case of MTNL, it was less than one-fifth in December, according to the report.

Punjab reported the highest decline rate in mobile subscriber base of 3.34 percent. It was followed by Mumbai, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The highest growth rate in mobile subscriber base was recorded in J&K, followed by Assam, Himachal Pradesh, and the NE region.

Reliance Jio led customer addition in the fixed line segment by gaining 2,35,317 customers, while market leader BSNL continued to lose customers. Bharti Airtel, Quadrant and Vodafone Idea also gained fixed line customers.

Read Also: Purpose of law not only to punish, but also maintain peace and harmony, says Allahabad High Court

The agitation by farmers on Delhi’s borders has captured headlines across the world. For more than a month, the farmers have been braving the cold, rain and police barricades to raise their demands. APN’s popular show, Loktantra, discussed the issue extensively.

By India Legal Bureau

The three contentious farm laws passed by the Union government last year have stirred outrage across the country, particularly among the farming community, and more than a month has passed since thousands of farmers, braving the chilling cold and rain, hit the roads in protest against the new “agriculture laws”. While the centre remains firm in its stand not to repeal the three farm laws and maintains that these are for the greater good of the farmers, the farmers’ body sees this whole thing as an attempt to benefit the big corporate houses. The farmers are also apprehensive that once these new laws come into practice, the MSP system will be gone and the APMCs will slowly disappear. This, according to them, will negatively impact their income and will further deteriorate their living conditions.

A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice of India SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian on January 6 expressed disappointment, saying: “There’s no improvement in the situation at all,”

In APN’s (sister concern of India Legal) show Loktantra, the three laws were discussed and debated extensively. The debate was moderated by Editor-in-Chief, APN, Rajshri Rai, and the panel included KC Kaushik, former additional solicitor general of India; Neeraj Kumar Sharma, chairman of the SCBA’s Multi-State Cooperative Group Housing Society; Sukumar Pattjoshi, senior advocate, Supreme Court and representing one of the petitioners; Narendra Yadav, advocate, Supreme Court; Kaushal Gautam, advocate, Supreme Court and also a petitioner in the case; and Vivek Sharma, advocate Supreme Court.

Rajshri Rai: Our Constitution gives special rights to the farmers. When this bill came, the first thing which was said was that it was an attempt to attack the empathy which our Constitution shows towards the farming community. The Supreme Court has today said that there is no improvement in the situation. What do you think on this?

Sukumar Pattjoshi (representing the petitioners in court): We have raised four issues. Our primary challenge is that of jurisdiction (technical issue).

Rajshri Rai: We have so far understood as Sukumar Pattjoshi said that there are four main issues related to this bill. Do you think that through these laws there has been an attempt to snatch the special rights which our Constitution guarantees to the farmers in the country?

KC Kaushik: As Pattjoshi has said, the primary challenge is that of jurisdiction. Agriculture is a state subject, so the government has passed the laws after putting it in the Concurrent List, which in itself is wrong. This means that the government is trying to encroach upon the rights of the state government. So, I feel there is something wrong (in the government’s approach).

Rajshri Rai: There is also another critical issue which is that of MSP. There is ruckus over the MSP. Farmers say that there should be no reduction in the MSP. Do you think the government has tried to usurp the rights of the farmers?

Neeraj Sharma: No, I don’t think so. When the Union Home Minister was in West Bengal, he said that the MSP will not be touched. Even the prime minister has said the same thing. The farmers were given an assurance that MSP was there, is there, and will be there. There will be no changes in the MSP. So, I don’t think that MSP is even an issue.

Rajshri Rai: There is yet another question that since agriculture is a state subject, why are you encroaching on this area?

Neeraj Sharma: The centre can legislate on certain subjects even if the state is not making laws on those subjects. The Indian government has the right and there is no question of encroachment.

Rajshri Rai: The petitioner, Kaushal Gautam, is also here. Sir, our few guests are saying that the government has not done something so wrong that you had to knock on the doors of the Supreme Court. What do you say?

Kaushal Gautam: The first thing is that the three laws passed by the government are unconstitutional. Agriculture is a state subject; if anyone crosses their laxman rekha, it is wrong. It is specifically mentioned in our Constitution that only states can make laws on issues related to farmers. As the Supreme Court is the custodian of our rights, we went to the top court to ask whether this Act was constitutional. The Court sent notice to the government and sought to know as to why this petition should not be entertained and the laws repealed. So far, the government has not given a reply to the apex court on this.

Rajshri Rai: The Supreme Court said that the situation is not changing, which is worrisome. What is the basis of your arguments in this case? Do you think the government has tried to disturb the federal structure through this bill?

Sukumar Pattjoshi: I cannot say whether such an attempt has been made or not. There is no ambiguity in our Constitution on who can legislate on which subjects… You will realise that this is a state subject. The main thing is that there are three other shortcomings in this Act. The government has said that there will be an agreement, so that farmers’ income will increase. However, the laws say that if in this agreement there is a dispute, the farmer cannot go to the courts, so that’s a problem. Secondly, there is nothing in the bill on the enforcement of the MSP. So, there is no security for farmers. And then, the Court should decide if this Act is constitutional or not.

Rajshri Rai: If we are saying that the Court should decide if this Act is constitutional or not, then don’t you think in a way we are encroaching on one another’s territory?

KC Kaushik: When a law is made, courts have to decide whether it is right or wrong. When it comes to the MSP, I have so far failed to understand how the MSP will be maintained. The farmers in India are not in a condition to fill big godowns. How will they do so, when they are not even in a condition to maintain themselves? Only capitalists can do this thing. The government ended the subsidy on diesel. This is just an example. So, if you can end subsidy on gas, you can do the same thing with MSP also. Now, you have taken this out of the purview of the Essential Commodities Act, where earlier agricultural produce was. When there is hoarding, what will happen? Ultimately it will give rise to inflation. The public will suffer.

Rajshri Rai: There is a fear among far­mers that MSP will be done away with, what do you say on this?

Neeraj Sharma: Things cannot run merely on the basis of fear or assumptions. You must know that foodgrains rot in FCI godowns. If you talk about the yield, we see in India there is an excess production of several foodgrains. So, if we view this with an eye that a big businessman will come and store everything in godowns, it will only be an assumption.

Vivek Sharma: MSP is never brought in via any legislation, but by the announcement of the government. This year in Punjab, the government purchased over 55 tonnes of wheat on MSP only. Then why this fear that MSP will not stay? There are two sets of situations before the agriculture bills and post the bills. Weren’t there farmer suicides before the agriculture bill was passed? As stated earlier, there are always aims and objectives for a bill. In the aims and objectives part of this bill, it is underlined that the main objective is to double the income of farmers, and there is a provision for this. As far as the federal structure is concerned, the centre has not attempted to overstep it. The centre has not touched the agriculture subject in this Act. But this Act has been passed under the category “trade and commerce of foodstuffs” which is on the Concurrent List.

Rajshri Rai: Why this objection, if the bill is passed under the category “trade and commerce of foodstuffs”?

Sukumar Pattjoshi: The objects and reasons part in this bill do not talk about trade and commerce, but speak about agriculture. The bill says the aim is to increase agriculture produce, but nowhere does it speak about trade and commerce. Moreover, the matter is pending before the Supreme Court, so let the Court decide.

Rajshri Rai: In India, everyone has the right to get justice and everyone is em­powered to go to the courts. But in this Act, the farmer can only approach the conciliation board or the SDM. The Act bars the farmer from going to the court. What do you think?

Narendra Yadav: In many cases, there has been a bar on approaching the courts, be it arbitration or revenue. Article 227 provides the option to move to the High Court. Even here after the collector, you can move to the High Court. So, there exists a supervisory jurisdiction. Therefore, as per my opinion, it will be wrong to say that the Judiciary has been sidelined.

Rajshri Rai: Do you think a farmer will be able to fight a legal battle against a private player, given the fact that the Act bars a farmer from moving to the courts?

Narendra Yadav: It is easier for a farmer to move to the SDM rather than going to the courts and waiting for years to get justice.

Rajshri Rai: What do you expect from the Supreme Court? Understanding the good things in this Act, it is also necessary to eliminate the shortcomings or negative things in the Act.

Sukumar Pattjoshi: It is not an adversary litigation, that one side will win and other will lose. There should be a middle path, so that everyone benefits from this Act.

Neeraj Sharma: In its December 17 order, the Supreme Court said it would be better if the matter is resolved outside the Court.

Read Also: PIL against Centre’s decision to use petrol, diesel cess for other things