Supreme Court Directs Union To Revisit Pulse Import Policy; Urges Inter-Ministerial Coordination To Incentivize Crop Diversification From Conventional Crops To Pulses

Highlighting the critical need for groundwater conservation and national self-reliance in food production, the Supreme Court has directed the Union of India to revisit its existing policy framework to better incentivize farmers to shift from water-intensive paddy and wheat to pulses.

The Bench emphasized that better coordination is required between the Ministries of Agriculture and Consumer Affairs to ensure that the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for pulses is not only remunerative but also protected from being undercut by cheaper imports.

The Court further noted that for successful crop diversification, the government must provide a "guaranteed platform" for timely procurement, ensuring that domestic farmers are not forced to sell their produce below the cost of production.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi ordered, "We therefore impress upon the Union of India to convene a meeting of relevant stakeholders and explore revisiting the existing policy framework to find a better substitute under which farmers are incentivized for diversification from conventional crops to pulses, along with certain benefits as illustrated above. We hope and expect that the ministries will effectively resolve this issue with a new policy regime."

Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the Petitioner, while ASG N Venkataraman appeared for the Union of India.

The Bench was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the Union Government's policy of allowing duty-free imports of yellow peas (yellow dal). The petition, filed by the farmers' organization "Kisan Mahapanchayat," contended that this policy severely harms domestic agriculturists by crashing local market prices.

The Court ordered, "During the course of the hearing, it was highlighted that the different ministries of the Union of India need to have better coordination, understanding, and a solution mechanism under the aegis of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare to promote pulses as a substitute for wheat or paddy in the northern part of India, and maybe as a substitute for other crops in South India. It was observed that in the absence of an incentivized MSP, the price should at least be sufficient to meet the expenditure a medium or small-level farmer incurs in producing pulses. Along with the guaranteed timely sale of the crop, the fixation of the price of yellow peas—which is being imported—should be handled in such a manner that it does not adversely impact homegrown pulses."

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of declining pulse production in India, which dropped by over 30 lakh tons in just three years due to disease and environmental factors. During the hearing, the Bench highlighted a major structural problem: while the government pushes for crop diversification to save falling groundwater levels—especially in North India—farmers remain hesitant to switch from paddy and wheat to pulses.

The Court noted that the lack of financial security and market certainty makes pulses a risky bet for the average farmer compared to the "assured" returns of traditional grains.

Chief Justice said, "How much is the product of our own country and what is the total consumption? The demand is like this. So actually, there are two organizations. Paragraphs 6 and 7 of our counter address this; this is a decision taken collectively by the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Ministry of Agriculture, and Ministry of Commerce."

Venkataraman said, "Coming to paragraph 6 of our counter-affidavit, there has been a steep decline in production because of a disease. L-Neophenomena: in 2021-22, it was 273 lakh tons; in 2022-23, it came down to 261 lakh tons; and in 2023-24, it came down to 242 lakh tons."

To which the Chief Justice replied, "Mr. Venkataraman, has the Department of Agriculture examined why it has declined?"

Advocate Prashant Bhushan replied, "The CACP (the Committee, the Commission on Agricultural Costs and Prices) has given two reports on this, maybe recently in 2025. The first report, which we had annexed in our petition, is from 2025, where they say: "Ensuring remunerative prices to farmers is one of the important pathways to achieve..."

Chief Justice said to Venkataraman, "We don't even need this report. The point is very simple. You have an MSP for wheat, you have an MSP for rice (paddy), and you have an MSP for some pulses now also. The moment you make sure that the farmer will get this price, you will see how it will rise. Unfortunately, this aspect probably has not been really addressed..."

The Chief Justice pointed out that farmers face two main hurdles. First is the productivity gap; where an acre of wheat can yield up to 100 quintals, pulses may only yield 10. Second is the assurance of sale. For wheat and paddy, farmers have a guaranteed price (MSP) and a dedicated market where money flows directly into their accounts. In contrast, pulse farmers are often left to navigate the open market like "poor fellows," frequently selling their produce at 20–25% below the fixed MSP because there is no guaranteed government procurement platform in place.

"We don't want to pass any order on that because it's a matter of policy. But if you have subject experts who know the pulse of the farmer—without knowing these pulses, if they know the pulse of the farmer—he will do it. The reason is two very simple reasons. One is that per-acre productivity of these pulses is far less as compared to wheat or paddy. So, if I have 10 acres of land, it's very difficult for a farmer to spare two or three acres out of it to divert it for pulses, because he knows that if he will get only 10 quintals out of it, the wheat will be not less than 90 or 100 quintals. And for 100 quintals of wheat, he has a dedicated price. He knows, "I will go. I have already made marketing available. I will get the money. Money will come to my account." About these pulses, he will go like a poor fellow running from one shop to another in the grain market. He may or may not get it. And unfortunately, when it comes, it's spoiled", it added.

The Court remarked, "Please ask your Ministry of Agriculture to constitute some... and don't take these experts who are having—again, we have nothing prejudiced against any foreign degree or this degree or that degree—but somebody who has worked at the ground level, who knows the psyche, the reasons, and the compelling circumstances of the farming community. He has to use electricity. He has to use water. He has to use all these things. And then he knows at the end of the day how much he will get."

Advocate Bhushan said, "This Commission, my Lord, is exactly that kind of body which your Lordship is referring to. This is the government's Commission on Agricultural Costs and Prices. This Commission advises the government on what should be the agricultural MSP, etc. Now, see, my Lord, what they said in their report of this year, 2025; they said at page 153: "Ensuring remunerative prices to farmers is one of the important pathways to achieve Atmanirbharta in pulses and edible oils, and a pro-farmer trade policy mechanism will help in ensuring better prices to farmers."

The Court added, "One thing more—I'm not sure whether they have agreed with it or not—for so many years, there has been a lot of campaigning from the government side to diversify agriculture, right? And the biggest challenge for diversification, particularly in North India, is the paddy crop. You start because you have to sow it somewhere in May itself. You cut off—you fix a date of cutoff at 15 June, they notify it, they make it an offense—but the farmer knows very well that right now some water is available; he will go, whatever you may say, even at the risk of inviting penal action, he will do it somewhere in May. And through the entire May, June, and July, you may or may not get adequate monsoon, and you have to keep water always intact there. So, the ground water level has gone so down only because of this reason...And regarding paddy, another related aspect: do we require as much paddy for consumption as we are producing? We need some good quality for export, like Basmati rice, because that brings in FDI. But with normal paddy, the production is likely much more than our consumption. So, if you divert—and the paddy plantation area is reduced—and that area is diverted for pulses, it will balance that."

The Bench observed that the desperate race to sow paddy as early as May—despite government restrictions—has caused groundwater levels to plummet. The Court questioned whether the country actually needs the massive surplus of common paddy currently being produced, suggesting that diverting this land to pulses would not only balance the market but also protect the region's failing water table.

Chief Justice added, "Please don't take it as adversity. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs rightly thought of it, because when you know that you require 3 lakh tons for consumption and the market available is only 250, you can't allow the poor person to be exploited in the name of price. Therefore, you will get the import; there is no other way out. But we are only talking of a long-term plan. Only if there is coordination between the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, and other stakeholders."

To which Bhushan added, "In fact, the pulse farmers were not even getting the open market price. They were not even getting the MSP. The government had fixed MSP for pulses, but the farmers were not even getting that. We have filed evidence that the farmers were getting about 20% or 25% less than the MSP fixed by the government. Even though, my Lord—that is another petition coming before your Lordship soon—we have shown that the MSP being fixed is not even taking care of the actual cost of production for the farmers. The Swaminathan Commission said "cost plus 50%," but forget 50%—even the "C2" cost is not being taken care of by the MSP. But today the situation is that even the MSP fixed by the government for dals..."

The Court added, "So there should be a guaranteed platform to sell it. Yes, at least at MSP. We are not encouraging the wheat crop so much for the simple reason that wheat as such is having a lot of health issues. It may not be a suitable asset. In fact, the government is promoting these millets. Rightly so, because it's our original, natural product. In the South, rice is the natural, staple food. Wheat is now not being encouraged. The moment you create an alternative option which is as assuring as wheat, it will have its own impact."

The Bench addressed the delicate balance between protecting consumers from high prices and protecting farmers from cheap imports. While the government recently imposed a 30% duty on imported yellow peas to stabilize the market, the Court emphasized the need for a long-term plan. It suggested that the "landed cost" of imported pulses should ideally be aligned with the domestic MSP.

In its concluding order, the Court "impressed upon" the Union of India to ensure better coordination between the Ministries of Agriculture, Consumer Affairs, and Commerce. The Bench directed the government to revisit its policy framework based on the recommendations of the Commission on Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP).

Cause Title: Kisan Mahapanchayat v. Union Of India [W.P.(C) No. 911/2025]