The Supreme Court's directive to diversify agriculture towards pulses highlights the structural failures of India's MSP and procurement architecture. Critically examine.

Q. The Supreme Court's directive to diversify agriculture towards pulses highlights the structural failures of India's MSP and procurement architecture. Critically examine. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

India is the world's largest producer and consumer of pulses, yet imported 47.38 lakh MT in 2023-24 against exports of only 5.94 lakh MT [2]. The Supreme Court's March 2026 direction to make pulse cultivation "worthwhile" for farmers [1] exposes a price-support architecture designed for cereals, not for diversification.

Structural failures the directive exposes - Cereal bias in assured procurement: guaranteed FCI purchase of wheat and paddy since the Green Revolution locked Punjab-Haryana into monoculture, while pulse growers face uncertain offtake. - Design flaw in the Price Support Scheme (PSS): procurement under PM-AASHA is triggered only after market prices fall below MSP [3], so the farmer absorbs the price shock first. MSP itself carries no statutory backing. - Contradictory trade policy: duty-free import of yellow peas, permitted till 20 February 2025, depressed domestic prices even as MSP sought to raise them [2]. - Administrative fragmentation: the Court had to name three ministries — Agriculture, Commerce and Consumer Affairs — while agriculture remains a State subject (List II, Entry 14), diluting accountability. - Ecological externality: paddy's water intensity and stubble burning are costs the MSP signal never prices in.

The counter-view: correction is already under way - Budget 2025-26 guarantees 100% procurement of tur, urad and masoor till 2028-29, with PM-AASHA cover raised to ₹60,000 crore [3]. - Output rose to 252.38 lakh MT in 2024-25 from 192.6 LMT in 2013-14 — a 31% gain [2]. - The Mission for Aatmanirbharta in Pulses (2025-26 to 2030-31), with an ₹11,440 crore outlay [4], and the NITI Aayog roadmap on pulses [5] show executive initiative preceding judicial prompting. - Constraints are also non-price: low yields, rainfed marginal lands and weak seed replacement, which MSP alone cannot fix.

The failure is therefore one of implementation and coherence rather than absent policy. Aligning trade, price and mission instruments — with time-bound procurement backed by ground-level expert committees, as the Court urged — can convert diversification from a directive into a farmer's rational choice, advancing both nutritional security and Article 21's promise of a sustainable environment.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Supreme Court directive on agricultural diversification and pulse cultivation, reported 16 March 2026 (The Hindu, news report; official text not reachable online) — SC direction to incentivise pulses and constitute an expert committee 2. Production and Import of Pulses — PIB — import/export volumes, production rise, yellow-pea duty-free window 3. Minimum Support Prices: From Safety Net to Self-Sufficiency — PIB — PSS trigger mechanism, 100% procurement guarantee, PM-AASHA outlay 4. Union Cabinet Approves Mission for Aatmanirbharta in Pulses for 2025-26 to 2030-31 — PIB — mission period and ₹11,440 crore outlay 5. NITI Aayog releases report on "Strategies and Pathways for Accelerating Growth in Pulses towards the Goal of Atmanirbharta" — PIB — policy roadmap for pulses self-sufficiency