Supreme Court Urges Government to Diversify Agriculture
Court emphasizes the need for MSP for pulses and stakeholder meetings to boost pulse cultivation among farmers.
Introduction
India is the largest producer, consumer, and importer of pulses in the world, accounting for nearly 25% of global production and 27% of consumption. Pulses are critical for nutritional security, providing around 20–25% protein in Indian diets. Despite producing about 24–27 million tonnes annually, India still imports pulses due to demand–supply gaps. Recently, the Supreme Court of India urged the Union government to revisit policies and incentivise farmers to shift from water-intensive crops like wheat and paddy to pulses, highlighting issues related to MSP assurance, imports, and crop diversification.
Background and Context
India’s agricultural system has been historically shaped by Green Revolution policies, which incentivised wheat and rice cultivation through assured MSP procurement and irrigation support.
However, this has led to:
- Overproduction of cereals
- Water depletion in states like Punjab and Haryana
- Neglect of pulses and oilseeds
The Supreme Court (2026) suggested a policy overhaul to promote pulses cultivation, citing lack of assured MSP and market access as key barriers.
Importance of Pulses in India
| Dimension | Significance |
|---|---|
| Nutritional Security | Major protein source for largely vegetarian population |
| Soil Health | Nitrogen fixation improves soil fertility |
| Climate Resilience | Requires less water and suitable for rainfed areas |
| Import Reduction | India imports pulses worth billions annually |
| Crop Diversification | Reduces monocropping and ecological stress |
Key Issues Highlighted by the Supreme Court
Lack of Assured MSP Procurement
- MSP exists for pulses but procurement is inconsistent.
- Unlike wheat and rice, government procurement of pulses is limited, forcing farmers to sell below MSP.
Import Policy Concerns
- Imports such as yellow peas reduce domestic prices.
- Farmers fear loss of income due to cheaper imports.
Decline in Production
- Pulses production declined from 273 lakh tonnes (2021–22) to 242 lakh tonnes (2023–24) due to diseases and climatic factors.
Regional Cropping Imbalance
-
North Indian states continue excessive paddy cultivation, causing:
- groundwater depletion
- stubble burning
- soil degradation
Role of MSP in Crop Choice
| Crop | MSP Procurement Strength | Farmer Preference |
|---|---|---|
| Wheat | Strong government procurement | Very high |
| Paddy | Strong government procurement | Very high |
| Pulses | Weak and uncertain procurement | Low |
Thus, policy incentives shape cropping patterns.
As noted by the Chief Justice of India, "A farmer should not have to run pillar to post to obtain a fair price for pulses."
Recommendations by the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP)
The CACP 2025 report suggested several reforms:
- Promotion of balanced crop production
- Higher remunerative MSP for pulses and oilseeds
- Alignment of import duties with MSP
- Encouraging technological innovations in pulse cultivation
- Reducing excessive cereal cultivation
Policy Measures Needed for Pulses Promotion
1. Assured Procurement Mechanism
-
Expand schemes such as:
- Price Support Scheme (PSS)
- Price Stabilisation Fund
2. Crop Diversification Programs
- Incentivise farmers in Punjab, Haryana, and western UP to shift to pulses.
3. Import Management
- Align import duties with domestic MSP to prevent price crashes.
4. Research and Technology
- Develop disease-resistant and high-yield pulse varieties.
5. Market Infrastructure
- Strengthen e-NAM, Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs), and storage facilities.
Government Initiatives for Pulses
| Initiative | Objective |
|---|---|
| National Food Security Mission (NFSM-Pulses) | Increase pulses production |
| PM-AASHA | Assured MSP procurement support |
| Price Stabilisation Fund | Stabilise pulse prices |
| Integrated Farming Systems | Promote diversification |
Broader Implications
Economic
- Reduces import dependency
- Improves farm income diversification
Environmental
- Lower water usage compared to rice
- Enhances soil fertility
Nutritional
- Helps address protein deficiency and malnutrition
Conclusion
Promoting pulses cultivation is essential for achieving nutritional security, ecological sustainability, and income stability for farmers. The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights the need for coordinated policymaking across agriculture, trade, and consumer affairs ministries. A guaranteed MSP regime, rational import policies, and targeted diversification programs can help rebalance India’s cropping patterns and ensure a resilient agricultural system.
UPSC Mains Question
“Crop diversification towards pulses is essential for ensuring nutritional security and sustainable agriculture in India.” Discuss the challenges and policy measures required to promote pulse cultivation. (250 words)
Attribution
Original content sources and authors
Syllabus classification
How this article maps to GS papers
Main syllabus
GS3AgricultureQuick Q&A
What is the significance of crop diversification towards pulses in the context of Indian agriculture?
Crop diversification towards pulses refers to the strategic shift of agricultural production from water-intensive cereals such as wheat and paddy to crops like pulses and oilseeds. This shift is being increasingly discussed in policy circles because pulses play a critical role in nutritional security, soil health, and sustainable agriculture. Pulses are rich in protein and are an essential part of the Indian diet, especially for a large vegetarian population.
From an ecological perspective, pulses contribute to biological nitrogen fixation, which improves soil fertility and reduces dependence on chemical fertilizers. Compared to paddy and wheat, pulses generally require less water and fewer inputs, making them suitable for regions facing groundwater depletion such as Punjab and Haryana. Thus, diversification towards pulses can help address the dual challenge of environmental sustainability and nutritional security.
However, farmers often hesitate to shift towards pulses because of market uncertainties, lack of assured procurement, and price volatility. Unlike wheat and rice, which benefit from extensive procurement under the Minimum Support Price (MSP) regime, pulses lack a robust procurement mechanism. Therefore, promoting pulse cultivation requires a comprehensive policy framework involving remunerative MSP, assured market access, technological support, and import regulation. The Supreme Court's recent observations highlight the need to redesign policy incentives to make pulse cultivation economically viable for farmers.
From an ecological perspective, pulses contribute to biological nitrogen fixation, which improves soil fertility and reduces dependence on chemical fertilizers. Compared to paddy and wheat, pulses generally require less water and fewer inputs, making them suitable for regions facing groundwater depletion such as Punjab and Haryana. Thus, diversification towards pulses can help address the dual challenge of environmental sustainability and nutritional security.
However, farmers often hesitate to shift towards pulses because of market uncertainties, lack of assured procurement, and price volatility. Unlike wheat and rice, which benefit from extensive procurement under the Minimum Support Price (MSP) regime, pulses lack a robust procurement mechanism. Therefore, promoting pulse cultivation requires a comprehensive policy framework involving remunerative MSP, assured market access, technological support, and import regulation. The Supreme Court's recent observations highlight the need to redesign policy incentives to make pulse cultivation economically viable for farmers.
Why has the Supreme Court urged the government to revisit its policy framework for promoting pulses cultivation?
The Supreme Court's intervention reflects growing concerns regarding agricultural sustainability, farmer incomes, and India's dependence on imports for pulses. The Court has urged the Union government to revisit its policy framework because the current incentive structure strongly favors crops such as wheat and paddy, which receive assured procurement and price support, whereas pulses do not receive similar protection.
One major issue highlighted by the Court is the absence of a guaranteed Minimum Support Price (MSP) mechanism for pulses that ensures farmers actually receive the announced price. While MSP exists on paper for several pulses, procurement is inconsistent and limited compared to rice and wheat. As a result, farmers often struggle to find buyers at remunerative prices and may be forced to sell below MSP. This discourages them from allocating land to pulses.
Another concern is the impact of imports on domestic farmers. For instance, the import of yellow peas was allowed after a decline in domestic production caused by disease. While imports help stabilise prices for consumers, they can reduce the profitability of domestic farmers if not carefully regulated. The Court therefore suggested aligning import policy, MSP mechanisms, and production incentives to protect farmer livelihoods while maintaining food security.
By directing multiple ministries and experts to collaborate, the Court emphasized the need for a holistic agricultural policy that addresses production, pricing, trade, and farmer welfare simultaneously.
One major issue highlighted by the Court is the absence of a guaranteed Minimum Support Price (MSP) mechanism for pulses that ensures farmers actually receive the announced price. While MSP exists on paper for several pulses, procurement is inconsistent and limited compared to rice and wheat. As a result, farmers often struggle to find buyers at remunerative prices and may be forced to sell below MSP. This discourages them from allocating land to pulses.
Another concern is the impact of imports on domestic farmers. For instance, the import of yellow peas was allowed after a decline in domestic production caused by disease. While imports help stabilise prices for consumers, they can reduce the profitability of domestic farmers if not carefully regulated. The Court therefore suggested aligning import policy, MSP mechanisms, and production incentives to protect farmer livelihoods while maintaining food security.
By directing multiple ministries and experts to collaborate, the Court emphasized the need for a holistic agricultural policy that addresses production, pricing, trade, and farmer welfare simultaneously.
How can Minimum Support Price (MSP) and procurement mechanisms influence farmers’ decisions to diversify towards pulses?
Minimum Support Price (MSP) plays a critical role in shaping cropping patterns because it provides farmers with an assured price floor for their produce. When procurement mechanisms are effective, MSP reduces market risk and encourages farmers to cultivate crops that might otherwise be considered economically uncertain.
In India, crops like wheat and rice benefit from extensive procurement by government agencies such as the Food Corporation of India (FCI). Farmers are confident that their produce will be purchased at the declared MSP, which incentivises them to allocate large areas of land to these cereals. This policy framework has contributed to India's success in achieving food grain self-sufficiency, but it has also resulted in monocropping and environmental stress in certain regions.
For pulses, however, procurement remains limited and inconsistent. Even when MSP is announced, farmers often lack access to procurement centres or face delays in payment. Consequently, market prices sometimes fall below MSP, discouraging cultivation. If the government establishes a guaranteed procurement mechanism for pulses—similar to that of rice and wheat—it could significantly alter farmers' incentives.
For example, initiatives like the Price Support Scheme (PSS) and Price Stabilization Fund have attempted to support pulse farmers, but their coverage remains limited. Strengthening these mechanisms through better infrastructure, digital procurement systems, and farmer awareness could encourage farmers to diversify cropping patterns while ensuring stable incomes.
In India, crops like wheat and rice benefit from extensive procurement by government agencies such as the Food Corporation of India (FCI). Farmers are confident that their produce will be purchased at the declared MSP, which incentivises them to allocate large areas of land to these cereals. This policy framework has contributed to India's success in achieving food grain self-sufficiency, but it has also resulted in monocropping and environmental stress in certain regions.
For pulses, however, procurement remains limited and inconsistent. Even when MSP is announced, farmers often lack access to procurement centres or face delays in payment. Consequently, market prices sometimes fall below MSP, discouraging cultivation. If the government establishes a guaranteed procurement mechanism for pulses—similar to that of rice and wheat—it could significantly alter farmers' incentives.
For example, initiatives like the Price Support Scheme (PSS) and Price Stabilization Fund have attempted to support pulse farmers, but their coverage remains limited. Strengthening these mechanisms through better infrastructure, digital procurement systems, and farmer awareness could encourage farmers to diversify cropping patterns while ensuring stable incomes.
What are the major reasons for the decline in pulses production in recent years and the resulting dependence on imports?
The decline in pulses production in India in recent years can be attributed to multiple agronomic, economic, and policy-related factors. According to the government’s submission before the Supreme Court, pulses production fell from 273 lakh tonnes in 2021–22 to 242 lakh tonnes in 2023–24, partly due to disease outbreaks affecting crops in key growing regions.
One major factor is the vulnerability of pulses to climatic variability and pests. Pulses are often grown in rain-fed areas with limited irrigation facilities. Irregular rainfall, drought conditions, or crop diseases can significantly reduce yields. Compared to cereals like wheat and rice, pulses receive relatively less investment in research, irrigation infrastructure, and extension services.
Another critical factor is the lack of economic incentives for farmers. Since MSP procurement for pulses is limited, farmers face greater price risks compared to cereal cultivation. As a result, many farmers prefer crops that have assured government procurement and stable markets. This policy imbalance has contributed to a reduction in the area under pulses cultivation.
Consequently, India often resorts to imports of pulses such as yellow peas, lentils, and chickpeas to meet domestic demand and control price inflation. While imports help maintain consumer affordability, excessive dependence on external sources can undermine domestic production and expose the country to global market fluctuations. Therefore, strengthening domestic pulse production is essential for both farmer welfare and food security.
One major factor is the vulnerability of pulses to climatic variability and pests. Pulses are often grown in rain-fed areas with limited irrigation facilities. Irregular rainfall, drought conditions, or crop diseases can significantly reduce yields. Compared to cereals like wheat and rice, pulses receive relatively less investment in research, irrigation infrastructure, and extension services.
Another critical factor is the lack of economic incentives for farmers. Since MSP procurement for pulses is limited, farmers face greater price risks compared to cereal cultivation. As a result, many farmers prefer crops that have assured government procurement and stable markets. This policy imbalance has contributed to a reduction in the area under pulses cultivation.
Consequently, India often resorts to imports of pulses such as yellow peas, lentils, and chickpeas to meet domestic demand and control price inflation. While imports help maintain consumer affordability, excessive dependence on external sources can undermine domestic production and expose the country to global market fluctuations. Therefore, strengthening domestic pulse production is essential for both farmer welfare and food security.
Critically analyze the role of judicial intervention in shaping agricultural policy in India, as seen in the Supreme Court’s directions regarding pulses cultivation.
Judicial intervention in agricultural policy often arises when issues of farmer welfare, food security, or economic justice are brought before the courts through public interest litigation. In the present case, the Supreme Court’s observations regarding pulse cultivation highlight the judiciary’s role in drawing attention to policy gaps and encouraging the executive to revisit existing frameworks.
One positive aspect of such intervention is that it promotes policy accountability and public debate. By questioning the absence of guaranteed MSP and the impact of imports on domestic farmers, the Court has highlighted structural challenges in India’s agricultural economy. The directive to involve multiple ministries and subject experts demonstrates an effort to encourage evidence-based policymaking and interdepartmental coordination.
However, there are also concerns regarding the limits of judicial involvement in policy matters. Agricultural pricing, trade policy, and procurement decisions involve complex economic calculations and fiscal constraints, which fall primarily within the domain of the executive and legislature. Excessive judicial intervention could blur the boundaries between the branches of government and raise issues related to the doctrine of separation of powers.
Therefore, the ideal approach lies in constructive judicial oversight, where courts highlight issues of public importance without directly dictating policy outcomes. In this context, the Supreme Court’s directions serve as a catalyst for reform by urging the government to consider expert recommendations such as those from the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP).
One positive aspect of such intervention is that it promotes policy accountability and public debate. By questioning the absence of guaranteed MSP and the impact of imports on domestic farmers, the Court has highlighted structural challenges in India’s agricultural economy. The directive to involve multiple ministries and subject experts demonstrates an effort to encourage evidence-based policymaking and interdepartmental coordination.
However, there are also concerns regarding the limits of judicial involvement in policy matters. Agricultural pricing, trade policy, and procurement decisions involve complex economic calculations and fiscal constraints, which fall primarily within the domain of the executive and legislature. Excessive judicial intervention could blur the boundaries between the branches of government and raise issues related to the doctrine of separation of powers.
Therefore, the ideal approach lies in constructive judicial oversight, where courts highlight issues of public importance without directly dictating policy outcomes. In this context, the Supreme Court’s directions serve as a catalyst for reform by urging the government to consider expert recommendations such as those from the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP).
Suppose you are a policy advisor to the Ministry of Agriculture. What policy measures would you recommend to encourage farmers to shift from paddy cultivation to pulses?
Encouraging farmers to shift from paddy cultivation to pulses requires a comprehensive policy package that addresses both economic incentives and structural constraints. Since farmers base cropping decisions on profitability and market security, policy measures must ensure that pulse cultivation becomes financially attractive.
Key policy measures could include:
In addition, infrastructure development is essential. Expanding storage facilities, processing units, and market linkages can help reduce post-harvest losses and improve price realization for farmers. Digital platforms such as e-NAM can also facilitate transparent price discovery and wider market access.
A practical example is the promotion of pulses under schemes such as the National Food Security Mission (NFSM), which provides seed distribution, demonstrations, and technological support. If integrated with strong procurement and trade policies, such initiatives can successfully encourage farmers to diversify cropping patterns while ensuring sustainable agriculture and nutritional security.
Key policy measures could include:
- Guaranteed MSP procurement: Establish an effective procurement system for pulses similar to wheat and rice to provide farmers with assured returns.
- Import policy alignment: Align import duties and quotas with domestic MSP to prevent imported pulses from depressing local prices.
- Technological support: Invest in research and development of high-yield and disease-resistant pulse varieties through institutions like ICAR.
- Crop diversification incentives: Provide financial incentives, subsidies, or direct income support to farmers who shift acreage from paddy to pulses.
In addition, infrastructure development is essential. Expanding storage facilities, processing units, and market linkages can help reduce post-harvest losses and improve price realization for farmers. Digital platforms such as e-NAM can also facilitate transparent price discovery and wider market access.
A practical example is the promotion of pulses under schemes such as the National Food Security Mission (NFSM), which provides seed distribution, demonstrations, and technological support. If integrated with strong procurement and trade policies, such initiatives can successfully encourage farmers to diversify cropping patterns while ensuring sustainable agriculture and nutritional security.
Practice questions
2 questions for mains preparation