Farmers Demand Statutory MSP Guarantee Before Supreme Court Committee: Legal, Constitutional and Policy Dimensions
Background of the Supreme Court Committee
A committee constituted by the Supreme Court of India to recommend corrective measures in the agrarian sector held consultations with various farmers’ unions on Friday. The committee is chaired by Justice Nawab Singh (Retd.), a former High Court judge, and includes agricultural economists, policy analysts, and representatives from statutory bodies.
The committee was formed following prolonged farmers’ protests at the Shambhu and Khanouri borders between Punjab and Haryana. These protests, led by the Sanyukt Kisan Union (Non-Political) under the leadership of Jagjeet Singh Dallewal, continued for over a year before farmers were forcibly evicted in March last year.
The apex court constituted the panel on January 6 to address systemic agrarian distress, MSP implementation issues, and procurement failures.
Core Demand: Central Law Guaranteeing MSP on All Crops
The farmers’ delegation made a categorical demand for a central legislation guaranteeing Minimum Support Price (MSP) for all crops.
According to Jagjeet Singh Dallewal, the absence of a statutory framework renders MSP merely advisory in nature, leaving farmers vulnerable to exploitation by middlemen and procurement agencies. The delegation stressed that a law must include punitive provisions against buyers who purchase crops below MSP.
Farmers argued that without legal enforceability, MSP announcements fail to translate into actual income protection.
Ground Reality: MSP Violations and Market Exploitation
Farmers from Punjab districts such as Tarn Taran, Gurdaspur, and Amritsar highlighted widespread MSP violations.
Khushal Singh, a farmer from Gurdaspur, informed the committee that during the paddy procurement season, farmers received payments nearly 20% lower than the declared MSP of ₹2,369 per quintal.
He also flagged serious issues with grain moisture measurement, stating that:
The process lacks transparency
Arbitrary deductions are imposed
Farmers are compelled to accept lower prices under time pressure
When questioned by Justice Nawab Singh on why formal complaints are not filed, Khushal Singh responded that farmers face institutional pressure due to:
Crop perishability
Immediate need for liquidity
Preparation for the next sowing season
Collusion between traders and procurement agencies
Nationwide Participation and Interstate Concerns
Farm leaders from Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and Haryana participated in the meeting.
Farmers from Uttar Pradesh highlighted rampant intermediary control, stating that middlemen purchase crops at distress prices and later sell them to government agencies at MSP. This effectively excludes farmers from the MSP benefit chain.
Dallewal remarked that the narrative claiming “government purchases every grain” is misleading and inconsistent with ground realities.
Structural Flaws in MSP Calculation
Satnam Singh Behru, a farm leader from Patiala, questioned the methodology used for annual MSP fixation.
He pointed out that:
Input costs such as fertilisers, diesel, electricity, and labour have risen sharply
Crop yield is declining due to climate variability
MSP calculations do not proportionately reflect cost escalation
This disconnect, farmers argue, violates the principle of income assurance, which MSP is intended to provide.
Committee’s Response and Outcome of the Meeting
After the meeting, Jagjeet Singh Dallewal clarified that:
The committee did not give any assurance of recommending a statutory MSP law
However, committee members were receptive and positive towards the submissions
He added that farmers participated in the dialogue to ensure they are not later accused of refusing engagement or consultation.
Legal Framework Governing MSP
Statutory Position on MSP
At present, MSP has no statutory backing. It is determined annually by the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) and approved by the Union Cabinet.
Key statutes relevant to agricultural pricing include:
Essential Commodities Act, 1955
Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020 (now repealed)
Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Acts of states
None of these laws mandate compulsory procurement at MSP or penalise purchases below MSP.
Constitutional Provisions Relevant to MSP
Article 21 – Right to Life
Judicial interpretation includes the right to livelihood. Farmers argue that denial of fair crop prices threatens subsistence.Article 38 – Directive Principles of State Policy
Mandates the State to promote social and economic justice.Article 39(b) and (c)
Requires equitable distribution of material resources and prevention of concentration of wealth.Article 43
Directs the State to secure a living wage and decent standard of life for workers, which can be extended to agricultural labour and farmers.
Although DPSPs are non-justiciable, courts frequently rely on them to interpret fundamental rights.
Judicial Precedents on MSP and Agricultural Rights
Ramlila Maidan Incident Case (2012)
The Supreme Court recognised the legitimacy of peaceful protests concerning livelihood issues.PUCL v Union of India (Right to Food Case)
Established that food security and farmer welfare are integral to Article 21.Farm Laws Case (2021–22)
While staying the implementation of farm laws, the Supreme Court acknowledged the systemic vulnerability of farmers and the need for dialogue-driven reform.State of Gujarat v Mirzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat
Affirmed that economic measures impacting livelihoods must meet constitutional reasonableness.
No judgment so far has directed statutory MSP, but courts have repeatedly emphasised farmer welfare as a constitutional obligation.
Conclusion: Policy Crossroads for Indian Agriculture
The interaction between farmers and the Supreme Court committee highlights a deep structural crisis in agricultural pricing. The demand for a statutory MSP law is not merely economic but constitutional in nature, touching upon dignity, livelihood, and equitable growth.
Whether the committee ultimately recommends a legal guarantee remains uncertain. However, the proceedings underscore that MSP can no longer remain a policy promise without enforceability.
As agrarian distress deepens across states, the question before policymakers and courts alike is whether price assurance can remain discretionary in a constitutional democracy dependent on farmers for food security.

Comments
Post a Comment