The Supreme Court has sought a response from the Union government on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Kisan Mahapanchayat which has challenged the government’s policy of allowing duty-free imports of yellow peas, a cheaper substitute for domestically grown pulses.
A bench, led by justice Surya Kant, and comprising justice Ujjal Bhuyan and justice NK Singh, issued a notice after hearing arguments that the government’s decision was eroding the income of Indian farmers and undermining the cultivation of traditional pulses such as tur, moong, urad and chana.
Appearing for the petitioners, senior counsel Prashant Bhushan argued that the landed cost of imported yellow peas is about Rs3,500 per quintal (Rs35 a kilo), while the minimum support price (MSP) for comparable Indian pulses is roughly Rs8,500 per quintal (Rs85 a kilo). “So, import is at Rs35 per kilo, whereas domestic prices are at Rs85 per kilo,” Mr Bhushan told the bench, adding that farmers were being forced to sell their produce below cost.
The petition challenges notification no16/2025-26 dated 31 May 2025, issued by the directorate general of foreign trade (DGFT), which extended duty-free imports of yellow peas until March 2026. The farmers’ body argues that the move is arbitrary and irrational, pointing out that the government has repeatedly rolled over such relaxations through seven consecutive notifications since December 2023, effectively keeping imports open continuously.
Mr Bhushan relied on reports from government-backed expert bodies, including the commission on agricultural costs and prices (CACP) and NITI Aayog, both of which warned of the negative impact of free imports. The CACP, in its March 2025 report, recommended an outright ban on yellow pea imports and suggested raising duties on other pulses to encourage domestic production. NITI Aayog, in its September 2025 report, similarly stressed that India must reduce dependence on imports, expand domestic cultivation, and prioritise food security.
Justice Kant repeatedly asked whether India has sufficient domestic production of pulses to meet its needs, noting that storage and supply chain constraints often leave farmers at the mercy of low market prices. “Do we have sufficiency of domestic production of pulses to cater to our needs? What is happening is, farmer cannot afford to store. Storage is not owned by farmers. So the price factor, the farmer will get less than base price....” he observed during the hearing.
Mr Bhushan countered that official reports had consistently flagged imports as the cause of depressed prices, leaving farmers unable to recover even their production costs. He added that in Australia and other countries, yellow peas are mostly used as cattle feed, raising concerns about their suitability for human consumption in India.
Justice Kant too queried, “What is the health impact of this?”
The petition points out that in 2024, India imported 6.7mn (million) tonnes of pulses, of which yellow peas alone accounted for 2.9mn tonnes. The imports primarily came from Canada, US and Australia. According to the petitioners, this surge in imports runs counter to the government’s own 'mission for aatmanirbharta in pulses', launched in February 2025 to boost self-reliance in pulse production.
The PIL cites provisions of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992, which empower the government to regulate imports in the interest of the domestic industry. It also refers to earlier Supreme Court rulings in Union of India vs Agricas LLP (2021) and Union of India vs Raj Grow Impex LLP (2021), where the Court upheld restrictions on imports imposed to safeguard farmers’ interests.
Adv Bhushan stressed that even the Union minister for agriculture Shivraj Singh Chauhan has expressed concern in communications to the food and consumer affairs ministry, warning that duty-free imports are disincentivising pulse cultivation and worsening the crisis for farmers, some of whom are pushed to the brink of suicide.
While issuing notice, the Bench clarified that it was acting mainly on the strength of official reports by the CACP and NITI Aayog. “We are inclined to issue notice only because of these official and very responsible institution reports... but ultimately you will have to examine [so that] the net end result may not be sufferings of the consumer,” justice Kant remarked.
The government has been asked to respond, and the matter will be taken up after submissions are filed.
