The Supreme Court on Friday considered issues arising from the Centre’s policy permitting the import of yellow peas, a substitute for several pulses grown domestically.
The petitioners argued that large-scale imports at prices far lower than the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for domestic pulses were adversely affecting Indian farmers. They contended that even after the government imposed a 30% import duty on yellow peas, the imported product remained significantly cheaper than domestically produced pulses.
During the hearing, the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that questions relating to import duties and MSP fall largely within the realm of economic policy, and therefore judicial intervention must be limited. However, the Bench emphasised the need for better coordination between policy and ground realities faced by farmers. The Court observed:
“We don’t want to pass any order because it is a matter of policy… but if you have two such experts who know the pulse of the farmers, you will know what policy should be.”
Referring to the broader issue of crop diversification and farmer incentives, the Bench noted that farmers often hesitate to cultivate pulses due to uncertainty in pricing and marketing. The Court also highlighted the need for policy reforms encouraging diversification away from water-intensive crops like wheat and paddy, while ensuring that farmers receive remunerative prices for alternative crops.
“If I have ten acres of land, it is very difficult for a farmer to spare two or three acres for pulses when he knows wheat or paddy will give him assured returns and ready marketing….The moment you create an alternative option which is as assuring as wheat or paddy, farmers will diversify.”
The government informed the Court that the import policy had evolved gradually in response to declining domestic production of pulses and rising consumer prices. According to the Centre, production had fallen from 273 lakh tonnes in 2021-22 to 242 lakh tonnes in 2023-24, prompting steps such as regulating imports and imposing duties to balance farmer and consumer interests.
Taking note of the submissions, the Court suggested that the government convene consultations among stakeholders to develop a coordinated policy framework for pulse production, imports, and farmer incentives. “Let us do something about it.”
The Court observed that future deliberations should take into account recommendations of the Commission on Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) and explore measures that would both encourage farmers to cultivate pulses and ensure affordable prices for consumers.