Introduction:

In a significant ruling aimed at safeguarding farmers’ interests, the Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to establish at least one crop procurement centre in each taluka for two months beyond the procurement period fixed by the Government of India. This decision emerged from a public interest litigation filed by Rait Sena Karnataka, a registered society advocating for farmers’ rights. The petition highlighted the challenges faced by farmers due to the limited operational period of procurement centres, which often compels them to sell their produce to middlemen at rates below the Minimum Support Price (MSP).

Arguments Presented:

Petitioners’ Perspective:

Rait Sena Karnataka argued that the existing procurement centres operate only for a limited period each year, causing inconvenience and hardship to farmers. Due to changes in cultivation patterns arising from geographical and climatic variations, farmers are now harvesting their crops beyond 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.

Government’s Stand:

The government contended that a sufficient number of procurement centres are operational during the harvesting seasons. The procurement period is determined based on guidelines issued by the Government of India, considering factors such as the total sown area, estimated yield, number of farmers, and other relevant parameters. The state emphasised that procurement at MSP is not extended to all agricultural produce but is confined to specified food grains agreed upon between the central and respective state governments.

Court’s Observations and Judgment:

The division bench, comprising former Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind, acknowledged the petitioners’ concerns and recognised the evolving agricultural landscape due to climatic changes. The court noted that the traditional Rabi and Kharif seasons have undergone significant alterations, necessitating a reevaluation of procurement periods to suit local, geographical, and climatic conditions.

While the court refused to mandate year-round operation of procurement centres, it directed the state government to:

Establish at least one procurement centre in each taluka for two months beyond the procurement period fixed by the Government of India.

Ensure that the Deputy Commissioner of each district undertakes a scientific study to assess the nature of crops cultivated and the estimated quantity of food grains likely to be brought by farmers to the procurement centres.

If existing procurement centres are found insufficient upon commencement of procurement at MSP, the concerned Deputy Commissioner must ensure that adequate additional procurement centres are established and made operational within the procurement period.

Depending on geographical conditions and the quantity of food grains produced in a particular region, the state government shall have the discretion to keep procurement centres open beyond the prescribed period to effectively achieve the objectives of the MSP scheme.

The court emphasised that 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.