How different are farm Bills of three Congress-ruled states from Centre's?

Rajasthan recently became the third Congress-ruled state to table its own agriculture bills to nullify or negate the impact of the three central Acts on agriculture marketing cleared last month. Punjab, followed by Chhattisgarh, were the earlier two. However, while Rajasthan and Punjab bills are quite similar in their tone and tenor, the Chhattisgarh bill is vastly different. Chhattisgarh Agriculture Minister Ravinder Choubey, while replying to the debate on the bills, categorically stated that the none of its provisions violates any of the statutes given in the central legislations.

So what are key provisions of the three bills and what do they say on the contentious issues in relation to the central Acts?

Items	Central Acts	Punjab Bill	Chhattisgarh Bill	Rajasthan Bill
On MSP	Does not mention MSP anywhere or whether it will be guaranteed or not.	The Punjab bills say that no one can compel a farmer to sell wheat and rice below the MSP in the state. Nor it can be sold below MSP anywhere in the state.	Does not say anything on MSP or whether it will guaranteed or not	Only the contract act says that no contract will be valid unless the price paid is equal to or greater than the prevailing MSP.
Treatment of Central Acts	NA	Amends specific provisions of the Central Act to suit state’s needs.	Does nothing to the Central Act instead amends its own mandi Act to designate cold storages, silos, warehouses and other places where buying and selling of agriculture commodities take place as deemed mandis apparently to ensure that all taxes and APMC rules are applied on the new areas	Amends specific provisions of the Central Act to suit states needs
Penal provision	No fine on purchasing or selling below MSP but penalty for violating certain rules and acts mandated as per the Law	Three years’ imprisonment and fine for compelling anyone to sell below MSP but only for wheat and paddy. Does not say how compelling can be proved.	If anyone violates some provisions of the state APMC Act that includes wrongful possession of documents can be subjected to six months jail and a fine of Rs 5000	If any trader or company or firm ‘harasses’ a farmer, such a trader shall be punished with a imprisonment of not less than 3 years which can be extended to 7 years and a fine of not less than Rs 5 lakhs or both.
Taxes	No taxes on any out of mandi transaction defined as trade area	Says that state will power to levy fees or tax on any corporate trader or electronic platform outside the mandis but regulated by APMC acts which will go towards a fund for welfare of small and marginal farmers	Does not specifically talk about any fees, but it is assumed that as soon as any area is declared as deemed mandi, it comes under the tax/fee net	Very similar to the Punjab Bill it says that state will have to power to notify any fees, cess or charge on farm produce bought or sold by any corporate or trader or any electronic platform which shall be deposited in a fund to be used for welfare of market committees or welfare of farmers
Dispute Resolution Mechanism	By the SDM or a concilliation board or appellate authority that will have members from aggrieved parties. Orders can't be challenged in any civil court.	Overrides the Central Act’s dispute resolution mechanism and says that apart from the remedies available in the Central Acts that include decision by SDM etc, farmers can approach civil courts to seek justice. Central Acts does not provide the civil court option	Not applicable as the changes have been made in the state mandi Acts which has its own dispute resolution mechanism	Any dispute arising between trader and farmer for any transaction shall be settled as per the provisions laid down by the state APMC Act or the market committee. In case of contract Act the market committee will have the power of a civil court
Essential Commodities Act	Centre only has right to impose stock limit on delisted items	Says that Punjab shall also have power to regulate production, distribution or impose stock limits in case of certain specified instances	Not applicable as it does not touch the amendments to EC Act	Same as Punjab Bill says that state will have power to impose stock limits
Confrontation with Central Laws	NA	Highly as several key provisions of Central Laws have been sought to be amended	Less likely as it just expands the jurisdiction of the APMCs to retain power to levy fees	Same as Punjab.
Ease of implementation	Already a law, but challenged in SC	Difficult will depend on Gov and Prez for their consent	Easy to implement	Difficult will depend on Gov and Prez for their consent