The Supreme Court of India on 13 April 2026 issued notice to the Union of India and the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) on a petition filed by three Maharashtra-based farmers seeking a direction to fix Minimum Support Price (MSP) at the comprehensive cost of cultivation, known as C2. A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi directed the respondents to file their response.
Background
The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by Prakash Gopalrao Pohare, Purushottam Gawade, and Vishal Omprakash Rawat, challenges the methodology used by the CACP in recommending MSP to the government. The petitioners contend that the current formula — based on A2+FL costs (actual paid-out costs plus imputed value of family labour) — does not reflect the true cost of agricultural production.
The comprehensive cost of cultivation, termed C2, includes actual input costs, imputed value of family labour, rental value of owned land, rent paid for leased land, and interest on working capital. The National Commission on Farmers chaired by M.S. Swaminathan had recommended in 2006 that MSP be fixed at C2 plus 50 percent, a recommendation that remains substantially unimplemented.
Key Arguments
The petition raises the following contentions:
Inadequacy of current MSP: The petitioners cite data showing that MSP for several crops is fixed below the comprehensive C2 cost, rendering cultivation economically unviable for farmers growing non-wheat, non-rice crops.
State-level cost variations: The plea seeks a direction to accord weightage to States' proposals on actual cost of cultivation, arguing that national averages used by the CACP do not reflect regional disparities in input costs, land values, and labour rates.
Farmer distress: The petition highlights that over 17,000 farmers have committed suicide in Maharashtra alone in the last five years, linking agricultural distress directly to inadequate price realisation.
Constitutional right: The petitioners frame the right to fair MSP as intrinsic to the right to life under Article 21, arguing that a price regime that fails to cover production costs violates the dignity and livelihood guarantees of the Constitution.
Implications for Practitioners
This petition reopens a long-contested policy question in a constitutional framework. While MSP has traditionally been treated as an executive policy decision outside judicial review, the framing under Articles 21 and 32 invites the Court to examine whether the State's pricing methodology meets constitutional standards of reasonableness.
Practitioners should note that the Court's decision to issue notice — rather than dismissing the petition as non-justiciable — signals willingness to examine the CACP's methodology on merits. If the matter proceeds to substantive hearing, it could establish a constitutional floor for agricultural pricing that constrains executive discretion.
The inclusion of the CACP as a respondent is significant: any eventual direction on cost methodology would bind the Commission's future recommendations, potentially altering the MSP determination process for all 23 crops currently covered.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is C2 cost of cultivation and why does it matter for MSP?
C2 is the comprehensive cost of cultivation that includes actual input costs, imputed value of family labour, rental value of owned land, rent paid for leased land, and interest on working capital. Farmers argue that MSP fixed below C2 does not cover their true production costs, contributing to agricultural distress, indebtedness, and farmer suicides across India.
Does the government currently fix MSP at C2 cost?
The government claims MSP is fixed at 1.5 times the cost of production, but uses the A2+FL formula — actual paid-out costs plus family labour — rather than the comprehensive C2 cost recommended by the Swaminathan Committee. The gap between A2+FL and C2 can be significant, particularly in States with high land rental values.