Supreme Court Urges Centre To Revisit Yellow Dal Import Policy; Says Farming Of Pulses Be Incentivised

The Supreme Court on Friday urged the Union Government to convene a meeting of relevant stakeholders to revisit the existing policy framework governing the import of yellow peas and explore measures to incentivise farmers to shift from conventional crops like wheat and paddy to pulses.

The Court emphasised the need for better coordination among ministries and observed that policies relating to import pricing and market support should be structured in a manner that does not adversely impact domestically grown pulses while ensuring remunerative returns to farmers.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition filed by Kisan Mahapanchayat challenging the policy of the Union Government to allow the import of yellow dal without any duty. 

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioner, submitted that the policy has resulted in a fall in 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 the production of the yellow peas had drastically dropped in the previous years due to a disease. From 273 Lakh tonnes of peas in 2021, the production came down to 261 Lakh tonnes in 2022-2023 and 242 Lakh tonnes in 2023-2024.

Bhushan referred to the Report of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices, which stated the need for diversification of crops with special focus on technological innovations and remunerative prices to pulses and oilseed farmers. He added that the report states that "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 stressed that in the open market, the pulses farmers were not even getting the MSP; they were getting 20-25% less than the MSP fixed by the government. 

The bench asked the Ministries of Agriculture, Consumer Protection and other stakeholders to hold a meeting and revisit the pulse import policy regarding the yellow peas. 

The Court observed in the order :

"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."

Urging the Government to revisit the policy, the Court ordered :

"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."

During the hearing, the bench said it was not inclined to issue any directions since the matter involved economic policy. However, it emphasised the need for a long-term policy to incentivise farmers to shift from water-intensive crops such as wheat and paddy to pulses.

The Chief Justice observed that farmers often avoid cultivating pulses because the per-acre productivity is significantly lower compared to wheat or paddy. It noted that while wheat cultivation assures farmers a stable procurement mechanism and a guaranteed price, pulses farmers frequently 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 rather than relying only on academic expertise. It said policymakers must understand the practical constraints faced by farmers, including irrigation costs, electricity use and market uncertainty.

The Court further highlighted that crop diversification remains a major challenge in northern India due to the dominance of paddy cultivation. It noted that despite regulatory restrictions, farmers often begin sowing paddy as early as May because of assured returns, which has contributed to the depletion of groundwater levels.

Questioning the need for large-scale production of common paddy, the bench observed that diverting part of the paddy cultivation area to pulses could help balance the market while also addressing environmental concerns such as falling groundwater levels.

At the same time, the Chief Justice noted that the government's decision to permit imports was driven by the need 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, adding that the real issue was evolving a coordinated long-term policy involving the Ministries of Agriculture, Consumer Affairs and other stakeholders.

Bhushan, however, reiterated that even the Minimum Support Price fixed for pulses was often not realised by farmers in the market. He submitted that farmers were receiving prices 20 to 25 percent lower than the MSP and argued that the MSP itself does not fully account for the cost of production as recommended by the Swaminathan Commission.

The Court observed that ensuring a guaranteed platform for farmers to sell pulses at least at MSP would encourage crop diversification. It also noted that the government itself has been promoting alternative crops such as millets and suggested that similar policy support for pulses could influence farmers to gradually shift away from wheat and paddy.

 Case : KISAN MAHAPANCHAYAT v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS | W.P.(C) No. 911/2025