While Supreme Court of India has criticised the Central Government on many issues in respect of the three Farm Laws vis-a-vis the agitation by farmers , it has at the same time, stayed the implementation of these laws which are demanded by the agitating farmers to be repealed and for which they are agitating by blocking roads etc around Delhi. The Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India has set up a committee comprising four members to hear all the stakeholders on the issue and submit its findings. The members on the committee are experts on agriculture, economics and allied matters and should really find out a way to break the impasse is what is aimed at by such initiative of the Apex Court. Not only this, during the currency of the stay, the Bench has ordered that the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system in existence shall be maintained in the same manner as before the enactment of the Farm Laws. Having said so, all the hopes pinned in the intervention of the Apex Court after so many round of talks between the Government and numerous ”leaders” of the Farm Unions not yielding any results, have plunged into uncertainties because of the adamant attitude of the agitating farm leaders . Prior to this initiative by the Government in agreeing in principle to continue with the MSP system ,and extending other measures of relief , farmers did not seem to be satisfied and not agreeing at anything less than withdrawal of these laws. The question, therefore, is what about the status of the four member committee appointed by the court . If the entire stand that has been taken by the leaders of the agitating farmers immediately after the names of the panel members were known and even by the formation of the committee itself is seen in totality, what is made out is neither they were going to put forth their demands and issues before this committee nor would they end the long stir. The alibi under which the committee is decided to be not approached for listening to their views is that they were ”all proFarm Laws persons” without ascertaining the same. Since it looks a pre-conceived notion, while it is unfortunate, at the same time, it augurs not well from any angle,neither in respect of the cause for which the farmers are protesting nor as law abiding citizens of this country, y, by not showing an inclination to having regard for and trust in the highest court of the country. If neither in the Government, nor in the judiciary, then through which forum the agitating farmers want a solution,is all baffling. Farmers who are agitating must see that at least to the extent the application and implementation of these laws have been put on hold by the SC, and provided a channel in the shape of a committee under its supervision and monitoring which could lead to resolution and remedies, should be reciprocated in a positive manner. When these all options are turned down by the leaders of the agitating farmers much before even the start of the very process, how could the impasse be broken? Some leaders in the opposition too do not want a solution as that unfortunately looks to them ”politically convenient” looking to spate of the statements given by them. Let the other side too be analysed, is it not a fact that without going into the pros- cons , advantages and disadvantages of the concerned Farm (Reform) Laws, still the SC put them on hold , though not indefinitely, which should be seen a great favour being done for the farmers. The intervention and the initiative by the SC with intent to find a way towards a solution of the problem, therefore, need to be respected. On the other hand, since these three laws have been passed by the Parliament strictly as per the provisions of the constitution, short of repealing them and settling for more assurances from the Government should be the stand of the leaders of the agitating farmers. The Government has already shown its willingness, it is now the turn of the farmers. Any more hard stand with tightest water compartments by the agitating farmers are feared to be leading to confusion, loss of business in areas hit hard by blocking roads as also waning of public sympathy for their cause.