Farmers Shouldn't Be Forced Into 'Distress Sales': Karnataka High Court Directs State To Operate Procurement Centers For Two Extra Months

The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to establish at least one crop harvesting procurement center in each Taluka for two months beyond the procurement period fixed by Government of India.

A division bench of former Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind held thus while disposing of a public interest litigation filed by Rait Sena Karnataka, a registered Society which had sought a direction to the authorities to operate produce procurement centers throughout the year, to enable farmers to sell their produce at the Minimum Support Price.

It said “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 Minimum Support Price (MSP) mechanism and are not compelled to resort to distress sales through middlemen, the State Government shall establish at least one procurement center in each Taluka for a period of two months beyond the procurement period fixed by the Government of India.”

The petitioners had argued that farmers are facing severe hardship due to the non operation of procurement centers throughout the year. The procurement centers are functional only for a limited period each year, which, apart from causing inconvenience and hardship to farmers, results in their being compelled to sell their produce to middlemen or agents at rates substantially lower than the MSP.

Further it was contended that owing to changes in cultivation patterns arising from geographical and climatic variations, farmers are now harvesting their crops beyond the traditional agricultural seasons. Consequently, when food grains are harvested outside the period fixed by the Government for procurement at MSP, farmers are compelled to sell their produce under distress, often to middlemen or agents, at prices significantly lower than the MSP.

The government advocate argued that a sufficient number of procurement centers are operational during the harvesting seasons. The procurement period is determined based on the guidelines issued by the Government of India, taking into consideration various factors such as the total sown area, estimated yield, number of farmers, and other relevant parameters.

On going through the averments the court noted that the decision regarding number of procurement centers is a matter of policy, which may reasonably vary from State to State, District to District, and depending on the geographical and agricultural conditions prevalent in a given region. The number of procurement centers to be made available to farmers, as well as the period of their operation, would necessarily depend upon various geographical and logistical factors.

Refusing to accede to the prayer, the court said “The primary purpose of procurement at MSP is to ensure that farmers receive fair and remunerative prices for their produce. It is relevant to note that procurement at MSP is not extended to all agricultural produce, but is confined to specified food grains as agreed upon between the Central Government and the respective State Governments.”

Further, “The procurement at MSP is designed to serve larger policy objectives, including the effective implementation of the National Food Security Act, 2013, and other welfare schemes of the Government, such as distribution of subsidized food grains to the economically weaker sections and the maintenance of buffer stocks to ensure national food security.”

Then it held, “The contention of the respondents that year-round operation of procurement centers may lead to large-scale recycling and misuse of the MSP mechanism cannot be brushed aside. While the grievances of the farmers warrant due consideration, it is equally imperative to safeguard the integrity of the procurement system and prevent its misuse, which would otherwise defeat the very purpose of the scheme.”

It added “The contention of petitioner that the non-availability of procurement centers during the non-agricultural season causes hardship to the farmers is noted but is liable to be rejected. When agricultural produce is not available for sale at procurement centers, maintaining such centers open would be contrary to reason and logic.”

Observing that “The State government has in its objections, acknowledged that owing to changes in climatic conditions traditional Rabi and Kharif seasons have undergone significant alteration.”

The court said “In view of the categorical stand of the State acknowledging changes in traditional harvesting seasons, the procurement period requires appropriate relaxation to suit the local, geographical, and climatic conditions. The adequacy of procurement centers during the procurement period also requires careful consideration.”

Accordingly it issued the following directions:

• The Deputy Commissioner of the District shall ensure that a scientific study is undertaken to assess the nature of crops cultivated and the estimated quantity of food grains likely to be brought by farmers to the procurement centers, prior to determining the number and location of such centers.
• Upon commencement of procurement at MSP, if the existing procurement centers are found to be insufficient, the concerned Deputy Commissioner shall ensure that adequate additional procurement centers are established and made operational within the procurement period to meet the demand.
• Depending on the geographical conditions and the quantity of food grains produced in a particular region, the State Government shall have the discretion to keep procurement centers open beyond the period prescribed hereinabove, as may be necessary to ensure that the objectives of the MSP scheme are effectively achieved.

Appearance: Advocate Gautam Shreedhar Bharadwaj for Petitioner.

Central Government Counsel B. Pramod for R1.

AGA Niloufer Akbar for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

Advocate Urmila Pullat for Advocate Mr. B N Jagadeesha for R7.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 191

Case Title: Rait Sena Karnataka AND Union of India & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.12751 OF 2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order