Scientifically assess crop cultivation and yield to determine required number of procurement centres, Karnataka High Court directs govt.
Taking note of the fact that the traditional harvest seasons have changed owing to climatic variations, the High Court of Karnataka has directed the State government to conduct a scientific study in every district to assess the nature of crops cultivated and estimated quantity of foodgrains likely to be brought by farmers to procurement centres, prior to determining the number and location of such centres.
Petition of farmers
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria (as he then was) and Justice K.V. Aravind issued the directions while disposing of a PIL petition filed by Raitha Sena Karnataka of Navalgund taluk in Dharwad district.
Though the Bench did not accept the petitioner's request for keeping open the procurement centres on a permanent basis on all the 365 days of the year, it found it necessary to direct the government to open additional centres and beyond the traditional harvest seasons as both the Centre and State government had admitted that there has been a considerable change in traditional harvest seasons due to geographical and climatic changes.
If the procurement centres are found to be insufficient when procurement of agricultural produce at Minimum Support Price (MSP) commences, the Bench said, the Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned should ensure that adequate additional centres are established and made operational within the procurement period to meet the demand.
The number of required procurement centres has to be determined by the district MSP task force, chaired by the Deputy Commissioner of the respective district, the Bench said.
Beyond traditional season
In view of the fact that crop harvesting now extends beyond the traditional harvesting seasons, and in order to ensure that farmers are adequately remunerated through the MSP mechanism and are not compelled to resort to distress sale through middlemen, the State government should establish at least one procurement centre in each taluk for a period of two months beyond the procurement period fixed by the Government of India, the Bench said.
However, the Bench made it clear that depending on the geographical conditions and the quantity of foodgrains produced in a particular region, the State government will have the discretion to keep procurement centres open beyond the period prescribed in this order, as may be necessary to ensure that the objectives of the MSP scheme are effectively achieved.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Tariff tightrope: How Donald Trump's ceasefire claim puts Centre in a 'no-win' situation
Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a meeting with US President Donald Trump at the White House, in Washington, DC, USA. (PTI file photo) While visiting India in late April, US vice president JD Vance announced the two sides had "officially finalised the Terms of Reference' for the negotiations on trade deal. US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick said June 3 that, "You should expect a deal between the United States and India (in the) not-too-distant future because I think we have found a place that really works for both countries. ' India was one of the first countries to begin trade negotiations with the US, launching talks in February as US President Donald Trump began to unveil his ambitious agenda to upend global trade. But as the July 9 deadline approaches, when a 90-day suspension on additional US tariffs is set to expire, the two sides have yet to seal the deal. Moreover, Trump has also said he does not plan to extend the 90-day pause on additional global tariffs beyond July 9, even as India's trade delegation extended its stay in Washington in a final push to iron out differences before the deadline. Also read: 'Not planning to extend tariff pause after July 9', says Donald Trump; India's trade team extends US stay India is seeking full exemption from the additional 26 per cent reciprocal tariff announced by the US on April 2. While the tariff was suspended for 90 days, the 10 per cent baseline tariff imposed by Washington remains in place. A tough ask It has proven difficult to officially ink a deal because of all the things the Trump administration is asking India to do to lower its trade barriers, while only offering to give up some of its newly-imposed tariffs, in return. The United States is urging India to open up sectors such as agriculture, dairy, and energy, and to reduce tariffs on products like soy, wheat, corn, ethanol, and apples. Washington is also seeking market access for genetically modified (GM) crops in India. India, however, is resisting these demands, particularly in agriculture and dairy, citing the importance of safeguarding farmers and maintaining the Minimum Support Price (MSP) mechanism. Negotiations have at times been marked by tension, as TOI reported earlier. At the beginning of the negotiations, the Indian government aimed to secure zero-duty access for several key export items, including textiles, leather products, pharmaceuticals, certain engineering goods, and auto parts. As TOI reported earlier that while American negotiators have shown interest in concluding the deal, they have conveyed to their Indian counterparts that the Trump administration is not in a position to offer zero tariffs immediately. Separately, India has also sought protection from any future tariff measures once an agreement is reached. Moreover, agriculture and dairy sectors are difficult and challenging areas for India to give duty concessions to the US. India has not opened up dairy in any of its free trade pacts signed so far. Trump's rhetoric on ceasefire between India and Pakistan Trump's repeated public claims about mediating peace between India and Pakistan during Operation Sindoor by threatening to "cancel all deals" have added a new layer of complexity to the already delicate trade negotiations between Washington and New Delhi. While trade officials from both sides have been working toward a deal since February, Trump's comments have stirred political unease in the country, as any suggestion of third-party involvement in India-Pakistan relations is considered a non-starter. The government has consistently maintained that there is "complete political consensus' against external mediation on Pakistan-related matters. Prime Minister Narendra Modi reinforced this position directly to Trump in a recent phone call. "PM Modi told President Trump clearly that during this period, there was no talk at any stage on subjects like India-US trade deal or US mediation between India and Pakistan," foreign secretary Vikram Misri said in a statement following the call between the two leaders. "Prime Minister Modi emphasized that India has not accepted mediation in the past and never will," Misri added. Despite this, Trump has continued to take public credit for what he has framed as brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. He repeated the claim at the Nato summit in the Netherlands and during other public appearances. This dissonance has made it politically harder for the Modi government to move forward with a trade deal that was supposed to showcase progress in India-US ties. "Nothing riles Indians more than the idea that their government was bullied by a foreign leader,' Syed Akbaruddin, India's former ambassador to the United Nations was quoted as saying by the Politico. "A trade bargain that could have been a win-win deal now risks being portrayed by those who oppose it as a tribute, not a partnership.' "Trump's comments have injected mistrust and public skepticism of US support to India,' said Akbaruddin. "The more he repeats his claim, the more a prospective US-India trade agreement smells like coercion, not cooperation." In effect, the ongoing trade talks have placed the government in a delicate position. If a deal is not finalised by the July 8 deadline, India could face fresh tariff hikes from the US. But if an agreement is reached, the government risks facing criticism at home for appearing to bow to American pressure. "Whatever the current government does, it will be seen as they basically capitulated to President Trump's demand,' Mukesh Aghi, president and CEO of the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum was quoted as saying by the Politico. "So they are in a no-win situation." Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Hans India
a day ago
- Hans India
Agriculture can be revived in India only if farmers get right prices for the produce
In a complete reversal of its earlier stand, the Bharti Kisan Union (Ekta-Ugrahan), which boasts of the largest support base in Punjab, now calls for a rethinking on making Minimum Support Price (MSP) a legal right for farmers. Saying that a legal mechanism for MSP will lead to 'higher inflation', the leader of the farm union, Joginder Singh Ugrahan, has stirred a hornet's nest. While another farmer leader, owing alliance to BKU (Dakounda), Jogmohan Singh, termed any move that goes against the popular demand of the farm bodies for seeking a legal protection for MSP as 'back stabbing' the farmers, other farmer's voices expressed surprise at the turnaround. 'All factions should stick to the demand for hike in MSP as per MS Swaminathan's recommendation for 50 per cent profit over the input cost,' Jagmohan Singh had asserted. Till only a few weeks back, prior to the time when the protest at the Punjab and Haryana border were not forcibly lifted, farmer leaders Jagjit Singh Dallewal and Sarwan Singh Pandher, were both calling for MSP to be converted into a legal right across the country. Even after the farmers protests at Shambhu and Khanauri borders ended, these leaders maintain that a legal MSP is the only way forward. So do others. Nevertheless, the volte-face by the dominant farmers union in Punjab is baffling. While speculation is rife about why and how did the farm union go for a flip-flop, the split in economic thinking isnow wide open. As quoted in the media, Ugrahan says that beyond a point, the increase in MSP can't be sought as it will lead to increase in prices of foodgrains, making it out of reach of poor and marginalized classes. That is why the union is seeking a reduction in input costs, which will eventually bring in a fall in the cost of production. Any fall in the cost of production will indirectly mean a higher price for farm produce, he says. Before I go any further, let's first look into a fallacious call for reducing the input costs such as that of chemical pesticides, fertilizer, diesel, seeds and other inputs that the farmers have to fend for. For several years now, I have seen academicians saying, and mainline economists have often echoed, saying while there is no need to increase farmgate prices, what is required is to reduce the cost of production. They always knew that the input prices are not in the control of farmers and we often hear farmers rue that the MSP does not cover even the cost of cultivation. I don't blame the farmers, but at least the academicians should have known that the call for reducing the input costs is not workable and so it is meaningless. But I still see many academic papers that repeat the call for reducing the cost of cultivation. The reason is simple. Academicians and policy makers have never been in favour of enhancing farm incomes and therefore the best way is to divert attention to something that is undoable. Even if the Government decides to follow cost reductions it will only be possible with subsidy support, which means more budgetary support. And then at the same time, any increase budgetary support for agriculture is decried saying it will lead to fiscal imbalance. Ugrahan says: 'Not only farmers, we have to think about all sections of the society, particularly the poor. In case, there is an increase in MSP, it will lead to inflation. So, to benefit the farmers, the cost of agriculture inputs should be kept under check.' Therefore, I am a little surprised to know how come a senior farmer leader goes for a turnaround using the bogus argument of reducing the cost of production. In reality, what the farmer leaders need to know is that a majority of country's poor are in fact farmers. It is well-known fact, they produce enough food for the country, but themselves sleep hungry. The latest report of the Situational Assessment Survey for Agricultural Households, which was based on 2019 data, clearly shows that the average monthly income of a farm household, at only Rs10,218 is at the bottom of the pyramid. I don't think any miracle has happened in the past five years that shows a remarkable jump in farm incomes thereby to change the perception about prevailing levels of farm distress. If Joginder Singh Ugrahan is satisfied and comfortable with such low-income levels knowing (or perhaps unknowing) that his suggestion would not in any way lead to enhanced income levels, there is no reason why the farmer leader himself should not be rethinking. It is never too late to make a correction. I find this switch over most intriguing knowing that an OECD (organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) had worked out that in the 16 years period, between 2000 and 2016, Indian farmers had lost Rs 45-lakh crore. Moreover, the latest 2024 OECD report on producer support had categorically shown that Indian farmers were the only community globally that continued to incur losses year after year since the year 2000. What more evidence is required to demonstrated a broken food system that has been pushing farmers into a cycle of indebtedness, distress and suicides? Surprisingly, the policy makers who continue to call for reducing the cost of cultivation have never given any economic justification for not asking the industry to reduce the cost of production. Name one industry that continues to incur losses even for a year, and still stays in business. Tell me which section of the urban society has reduced the cost of living if it made any economic sense to them. I haven't heard of any section of employees wanting the pay commissions to be frozen. In fact, an imaginative 'fitment factor' continues to jack up employee salaries every ten years. Academicians and policy makers are fine with that (because it also raises their incomes) but then why is that such stupid arguments are floated only for farmers? The answer is again simple -- because farmers will fall for such outlandish arguments. Agriculture is in a dire crisis. Over the years, farm incomes have been deliberately squeezed. It is time to rebuild agriculture and that can only happen if farmers get an assured income (by way of a guaranteed price) along with a package of practices that actually usher in prosperity on the farm. (The author is a noted food policy analyst and an expert on issues related to the agriculture sector. He writes on food, agriculture and hunger)
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
MoF: Accept or reject, don't ignore
On June 19, 2025, the Ministry of Finance (MoF) convened a rare meeting of the Consultative Committee for the Ministry of Finance. I think it was the first meeting since the constitution of the 18th Lok Sabha in June 2024. The members are MPs of both Houses representing all parties nominated to the Committee. It is a useful mechanism if the government intends to use it. The finance minister (FM) presides over the meeting. The meeting on June 19 was formal — in fact, too formal and stiff. The chief economic adviser (CEA) made a 19-slide power point presentation (PPT), members were invited to make their comments and observations, the finance secretary summarized — literally encapsulated — the comments but offered no answers or clarifications, and the FM made her closing remarks. On no issue was there a consultation. Fortunately, in the 19th slide of his PPT, the CEA requested suggestions from members on four issues: For further improving farm productivity; Agenda for deregulation to reduce compliance burdens esp. for industry; Adapting our skilling programmes to AI and tech-driven disruptions; and How to accelerate formalization of the economy. I did not wish to make off-the-cuff suggestions at the meeting. I have since thought about the four issues and here are my suggestions: One of the slides mentioned MSP, PM-Kisan, PM-Fasal Bima, KCC, e-NAM and Food Parks: these are intended to increase efficiency and consequently boost productivity. In another slide on 'empowering farmers', the data on increase in yield per acre for major crops has been given. In each major crop, the increase in yield per hectare between 2013-14 and 2023-24 has been in double-digits. In fact, we have been on the right path since the days of the green revolution beginning 1965 and not only since 2013-14. However, productivity must be measured against world standards: Crop India Global Avg Best in average (Kg per the World /best hectare) Wheat 3,559 3,548 EU/Egypt /5,045 6,500-7,700 Rice 2,882 4,700 China 6,500 /4,516 Maize 3,351 5,824 USA 10,532 /6,239 Sugarcane 84,906 75,000 Brazil 75,000 /105,000 Cotton 443/602 1,040 China 2,252 There is another metric of productivity: productivity per farmer/farm worker. 58 per cent of the Indian population (as against 22 per cent in China) depends on agriculture and agriculture-related activities. Hence, the productivity per farmer is very low in India, and the average farmer is not only poor but is also burdened by debt. The way to accelerate productivity per farmer is to create non-farm jobs and to wean millions away from agriculture into non-farm jobs. However, because of high urban unemployment and the lamentable state of the manufacturing sector, that process has been in a start-stop mode; actually, there is data that in recent years labour has moved back to the agriculture sector. Suggestion: Accelerate the growth rate and expansion of the manufacturing sector. After 2014-15, the Modi government has re-established more control. RBI, SEBI, Ministry of Company Affairs, Ministry of Commerce, the Income-tax department, UGC and every other Ministry or arm of government have made hundreds of pages of rules and regulations. The old control regime has come back as 'regulations'. Government authorities exert power and control through disputation and litigation. Doing business in India means challenging regulations and orders, and seeking redress in courts and tribunals. The GST laws have added to the burdens of business. The high and multiple rates of GST are per se bad. The rules, regulations, notifications, forms and compliances under the GST laws are worse. Together with the manner in which the laws are interpreted and applied by the Income-tax, Customs, DGFT and GST departments, it is a nightmare for any business. The CBI, ED, DRI, GST enforcement and SFIO seem to regard every businessperson as a suspect and every chartered accountant and lawyer as an accomplice. If trade and industry have to be the prime drivers of the economy, the suffocating environment in which they find themselves must be removed. Suggestion: Light a bonfire every quarter, there is enough rubbish to burn. Read the Annual Status of Education Reports (ASER). The appalling levels of reading, writing and arithmetic skills of school children virtually rule out a technologically- empowered society. The triumvirate of UGC, NTA and NAAC have robbed the Universities of the essential character of a University — autonomy, inquiry and strive for excellence. They have driven serious teachers, scholars and researchers to foreign lands. The central and state governments have tied Universities hand and foot by starving them of funds. Thousands of teaching posts in Universities are vacant. According to a reply in Parliament, as on October 31, 2024, there were 5,182 teaching posts in central universities that were unfilled. I am afraid the way forward on this vexed issue lies far outside the ambit of MoF. Suggestion: CEA may delete this issue from his to-do list. What does the CEA mean by 'formalization of the economy'? Does he want more economic activities that are carried on in the 'informal' economy (e.g. part-time maid services in middle class homes) formalized? Suggestion: Absent clarity, I have none. Please accept the suggestions; or reject them; do not ignore them.
