The Supreme Court sought responses on a plea demanding weightage to states’ inputs in fixing MSP based on cultivation costs. The bench issued notices to the Centre and CACP, highlighting the issue’s significance for farmers’ income and agricultural policy.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court sought responses from the Centre and others on a plea to accord weightage to states’ proposals on the exact cost of cultivation while fixing minimum support price (MSP).
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued notices to the Centre and others, including the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, seeking their response on the plea. Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioners, said the plea raises a very important issue related to the farmers in the country.
The plea has sought direction to the authorities to ensure complete procurement of all notified crops under the MSP calculated on the basis of the exact cost of cultivation. It has also sought direction to take appropriate steps to ensure complete procurement of crops from all farmers who are desirous of selling their crops at the MSP.
The Minimum Support Price (MSP) represents the rate set by the government for purchasing certain crops from farmers, aimed at stabilizing prices and protecting their earnings. Each year, MSP is established for 22 crops based on advice from the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP). From the 2018–19 season onward, the approach has targeted at least a 50% return above production costs.
Various cost metrics come into play, such as A2 (covering only cash outflows), A2+FL (adding the estimated value of family labor to cash costs), and C2 (the fullest measure, which also accounts for land and capital expenses). Petitioners claim that MSP calculations typically stick to the A2+FL method, ignoring essentials like land rental and capital interest, which leaves farmers undercompensated.
Filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by three Maharashtra farmers Prakash Gopalrao Pohare, Purushottam Gawade, and Vishal Omprakash Rawat the petition demands that the government set MSP at no less than the weighted average of the full C2 production cost and guarantee actual purchases at that level. The farmers describe a nationwide economic hardship for growers, who often can’t even recover their cultivation expenses, fueling desperation and suicides. They cite stark figures: more than 17,000 farmer suicides in Maharashtra over the last five years.
The petition details how C2 encompasses not just direct inputs and family labor but also the rental value of owned land, leased land payments, and interest on working capital. Yet, it alleges the prevailing MSP formula essentially A2+FL times 1.5 omits vital land and capital factors, downplaying farmers’ real expenses. Procurement at MSP works well mainly for wheat and rice, but growers of other crops rarely see those rates, worsening rural woes.
It also flags how subsidized food programs, like those distributing wheat and rice for security schemes, distort markets and hurt alternatives such as millets. The plea pushes for MSP to match official C2 figures and for stronger buying systems so farmers can reliably sell at MSP.
In court, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioners, highlighted the crisis’s nationwide scope, noting flaws in procurement that favor few crops and expose most farmers to risk. He contended that MSP frequently falls short of full cultivation costs, with buying limited to select items. Bhushan clarified the demand isn’t for a 50% profit but simply full cost recovery via C2, data the government already produces.
He added that welfare programs like free rations shouldn’t harm farmers:
“It’s fine for the government to give ration for free. That should not mean that effect on farmers is such that they do not get cost also…as a result of which they are committing suicide.”
Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi voiced worries about implementation hurdles, especially varying land and capital costs by state. Justice Bagchi noted that the relief could veer into judicial overreach on policy. Bhushan countered that covering full production costs is essential for equity and justice.
The case also stresses using state-level data for MSP, as states track crop costs tailored to local factors like soil, irrigation, wages, and land prices. Ignoring these leads to a one-size-fits-all MSP that disadvantages farmers in costlier regions.
Case Title : PRAKASH GOPALRAO POHARE Vs UNION OF INDIA W.P.(C) No. 384/2026
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE