Farmers’ Rights and MSP Legal Guarantee Debate
Agriculture remains the backbone of India’s economy, supporting nearly 50% of the population. Yet, the condition of farmers continues to be precarious, with low incomes, rising input costs, and unpredictable market fluctuations. Against this backdrop, the demand for a legal guarantee of Minimum Support Price (MSP) has emerged as one of the most significant debates in India’s agricultural policy and farmers’ rights discourse. The issue raises fundamental questions about economic justice, market freedom, and state responsibility toward the farming community.
The Minimum Support Price (MSP) is a government-declared price at which it procures certain crops from farmers to ensure they receive a fair return and are protected from market volatility. It is announced annually by the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) for 23 crops. However, in practice, only a small percentage of farmers benefit from MSP procurement, mainly in states like Punjab, Haryana, and Madhya Pradesh, where government procurement is institutionalized. For millions of small and marginal farmers across India, MSP remains a theoretical assurance, not a practical safety net.
The demand for a legal guarantee of MSP gained momentum after the farmers’ protest (2020–21) against the now-repealed Farm Laws, which were perceived as favoring corporate interests and weakening the state procurement system. Farmer unions insisted that without a statutory backing, MSP lacks enforceability, leaving them vulnerable to market exploitation. They argue that a legal right to MSP is essential to secure economic dignity, livelihood security, and social justice—values enshrined in the Directive Principles of State Policy (Articles 38 and 39) of the Constitution.
On the other hand, economists and policymakers caution against making MSP legally enforceable across all crops and regions. They argue that such a policy could distort market dynamics, inflate food subsidies, and place an unbearable fiscal burden on the government. The Food Corporation of India (FCI) already faces excessive stockpiling and high storage costs under the current procurement model. Extending MSP as a legal right could lead to overproduction of certain crops like wheat and rice, discouraging crop diversification and straining environmental resources such as groundwater.
The Supreme Court’s interventions in cases related to farmers’ welfare have highlighted the need for balanced agricultural reforms rather than rigid legal guarantees. Experts propose alternative models like Price Deficiency Payments (PDP), where the government compensates farmers for any shortfall between market price and MSP, without direct procurement. This mechanism, if transparently implemented, could provide price assurance without the fiscal and logistical burdens of large-scale procurement.
Furthermore, ensuring farmers’ rights goes beyond MSP. It involves access to credit, irrigation, crop insurance, storage, and market infrastructure. The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020, though repealed, highlighted the need for market reform—yet such reforms must be built on trust, participation, and protection of small farmers. Strengthening Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) and investing in agricultural value chains could empower farmers to negotiate fair prices and reduce dependence on government intervention.
In conclusion, the MSP legal guarantee debate symbolizes the broader struggle between state responsibility and market efficiency in India’s agrarian economy. While a legal guarantee may not be fiscally or practically sustainable across all crops, the government must ensure that no farmer is forced to sell below MSP. The path forward lies in comprehensive agrarian reform—strengthening procurement where feasible, introducing price compensation mechanisms, improving infrastructure, and ensuring farmers’ participation in policymaking. True justice for farmers will come not merely from a law guaranteeing MSP but from a system that guarantees dignity, stability, and fairness to those who feed the nation.