After weeks of talks with protesting farmers' groups in which no satisfactory resolution regarding the three new farm laws seemed forthcoming, the Centre last week announced its intention to turn to the Supreme Court as a kind of a tiebreaker in the impasse. The first round of that gambit yesterday did not go well as a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court underlined its “disappointment” at the Centre’s handling of the farmers’ protest, including the string of failed talks, States being “up in rebellion”, suicides among protestors and the sight of aged farmers, women and children suffering in the biting cold amid the pandemic. The court said it would pass orders today and said it intended to stay the implementation of the three laws and have an independent committee negotiate with the farmers. "We don't want to make any stray observations against you... But we are extremely disappointed in the way you’re handling this situation. You [Centre] made a law without enough consultation, resulting in a strike... You say you are negotiating, talking... What negotiating? What talking? What is going on?” Chief Justice Bobde admonished the Centre. The point about consultation seemed to hit a raw nerve with the Centre then filing an urgent affidavit in the Supreme Court saying that the protesters were peddling an “erroneous notion” that the government passed the laws without consulting or discussing with anyone. In fact, the government argued, they were not hurriedly made but were a result of ‘two decades of deliberations’ and ‘intensive engagements with the states’. The farmers groups for their part have rejected the Court’s suggestion to appoint a committee to resolve the deadlock, arguing that the Centre’s attitude in court makes it clear that the government will not agree to discuss farmers’ demand for repeal of the three laws. The farmers have made it clear that they see the setting up of such a committee as something of a diversionary tactic and are unwilling to be drawn into a binding mediation without it being clear exactly what the remit of the committee would be. They would rather, they say, that the Supreme Court itself held further hearings to consult with them rather than simply pronouncing orders, as it is slated to do today. Whether the Court’s intervention will now ultimately have any meaningful effect remains to be seen. That makes this story the top pick of the day.