The Supreme Court on Friday urged the Union Government to hold a meeting with all relevant stakeholders. It asked the Government to revisit the existing policy on yellow peas imports. The Court also asked it to explore ways to encourage farmers to shift from conventional crops such as wheat and paddy to pulses.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made these observations while hearing a public interest litigation filed by Kisan Mahapanchayat. The petition challenges the Union Government’s policy allowing duty-free import of yellow dal.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the policy had pushed the prices of soyabean, groundnut, urud, moong and tur dal below the Minimum Support Price.
Additional Solicitor General Venkataraman, appearing for the Union, submitted that disease had sharply reduced yellow peas production in recent years. He said production stood at 273 lakh tonnes in 2021. It then dropped to 261 lakh tonnes in 2022-2023 and to 242 lakh tonnes in 2023-2024.
Bhushan referred to the Report of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices. He said the report stressed the need for crop diversification, technological innovation and remunerative prices for pulse and oilseed farmers. He added that the report stated: “aligning the import duty structure with MSP will ensure remunerative prices to farmers and encourage them to increase the area of production of oil seeds & pulses. The Commission recommends that the import of yellow peas should be banned.”
Bhushan also argued that pulse growers in the open market were not receiving even the MSP. According to him, they were getting prices 20 to 25 percent lower than the MSP fixed by the government.
Court Calls for Review of Yellow Peas Import Policy
During the hearing, the Bench asked the Ministries of Agriculture, Consumer Protection and other stakeholders to meet and review the yellow peas import policy.
The Court recorded: “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 Court also urged the Government to reconsider the current framework. In its order, it said: “We 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 … We hope and expect that the ministries will effectively resolve this issue with a new policy regime.”
Farmers Raise Concerns Over Yellow Peas Import Policy
The Bench said it was not inclined to issue directions in a matter involving economic policy. Even so, it stressed the need for a long-term policy that would encourage farmers to move from water-intensive crops such as wheat and paddy to pulses.
The Chief Justice observed that farmers often avoid growing pulses because per-acre productivity is much lower than wheat or paddy. The Bench noted that wheat growers enjoy a stable procurement system and assured prices. By contrast, pulse growers often struggle to find buyers in the open market.
“A farmer knows that if he grows wheat, he has a dedicated procurement system and assured price. But if he grows pulses, he may have to run from one shop to another in the grain market and may or may not get a fair price,” the CJI remarked.
The Bench also suggested that the Union Government should consult experts with ground-level experience in agriculture instead of relying only on academic expertise. It said policymakers must understand the practical constraints farmers face. These include irrigation costs, electricity use and market uncertainty.
Long-Term Issues Linked to Yellow Peas Import Policy
The Court also highlighted that crop diversification remains a major challenge in northern India because paddy cultivation dominates the region. It noted that farmers often begin sowing paddy as early as May despite regulatory restrictions. The Bench said assured returns have encouraged this pattern and contributed to groundwater depletion.
The Bench questioned the need for large-scale cultivation of common paddy. It observed that shifting part of the paddy cultivation area to pulses could help balance the market. It also said this could address environmental concerns, including falling groundwater levels.
At the same time, Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that the Government had allowed imports to protect consumers from price shocks when domestic supply falls short.
“When there is a demand-supply gap, imports become necessary so that consumers are not exploited through high prices,” the Court observed.
The Bench added that the real issue was the need for a coordinated long-term policy involving the Ministries of Agriculture, Consumer Affairs and other stakeholders.
Bhushan, however, reiterated that farmers often do not realise even the MSP fixed for pulses. He submitted that growers were getting prices 20 to 25 percent below MSP. He also argued that the MSP itself does not fully reflect the cost of production in the manner recommended by the Swaminathan Commission.
The Court observed that a guaranteed platform to sell pulses at least at MSP would encourage crop diversification. It also noted that the Government has promoted alternative crops such as millets. The Bench suggested that similar policy support for pulses could gradually encourage farmers to move away from wheat and paddy.
Case Details
Case: Kisan Mahapanchayat v. Union of India and Ors.
Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 911/2025
Also Read: Menstrual Leave Policy: SC Asks Centre to Consider
