Rajasthan HC Impleads FCI and RAJFED in PIL Over Failure to Procure Farmers' Crops at MSP
A Division Bench at Jaipur finds prima facie merit in farmers' claims that Makka, Bajra, Moong and Chana crops are not being purchased at Minimum Support Price, and orders specific affidavits from State and Central authorities by 30 July 2026.
The Rajasthan High Court's Bench at Jaipur took up a long-pending public interest litigation on 3 July 2026 and directed the impleadment of the Food Corporation of India (FCI), Krishi Vikas Sahakari Samiti, and Rajasthan State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (RAJFED) as parties. The Division Bench — Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Maneesh Sharma — observed prima facie merit in the petitioner's grievance that standard-quality crops such as Makka, Bajra, Moong and Chana are not being procured at the Minimum Support Price (MSP), forcing farmers to sell at prices well below that floor. The bench has called for affidavits and status reports from both State and Central authorities before the next date fixed for 30 July 2026.
The Dispute Before the High Court
The PIL was filed by Rampal Jat, who appeared in person alongside Mr. Pradeep Kumar as counsel. The petition, registered in 2018 and carrying URN CW/18740U/2018, has remained pending for several years. At the hearing on 3 July 2026, Jat pressed the submission that despite crops meeting the requisite standards, procurement agencies were declining to purchase them at MSP. Farmers were consequently being compelled to sell in open markets at substantially lower prices, causing direct financial harm.
The bench found these submissions to reflect a genuine grievance. Prima facie, the court accepted that the matter raises questions of grave public importance touching the welfare of cultivators across the State.
Why Impleadment of FCI, RAJFED and Krishi Vikas Sahakari Samiti Was Ordered
The bench noted that the FCI had not been arrayed as a respondent despite being centrally relevant to MSP procurement. The court directed FCI's impleadment and issued notice to it. Mr. Bharat Vyas, Additional Solicitor General, was directed to obtain instructions from FCI and place the Union of India's stand before the court on the next date.
Similarly, the court found that Krishi Vikas Sahakari Samiti and RAJFED — bodies involved in State-level agricultural marketing — were necessary parties and directed notice to both. Mr. G.S. Gill, Additional Advocate General, was directed to take instructions from both organisations. The court left open the option for these bodies to engage separate counsel if they consider it necessary.
The Legal Question: Discretion Not to Purchase at MSP
A pointed question the bench flagged is whether procurement authorities have any legal discretion to refuse purchase of crops that meet quality standards, even when MSP has been notified. The petitioner contended that no such discretion exists, and that the refusal to procure standard-quality Makka, Bajra, Moong and Chana at MSP is itself unlawful.
The bench directed respondent No. 5's counsel to file a specific affidavit addressing two matters: first, what steps have been taken to purchase the named crops at MSP; and second, whether any discretion is available to authorities not to procure crops that meet standards. This framing signals that the court wants a concrete legal and factual response, not a general policy statement.
The Bench's Observation on the Welfare State's Duty
The order records that prima facie the submissions at the Bar reflect the genuine grievance of the farmers. The bench stated that it is the duty of a welfare State to ensure that farmers' crops are sold in a manner that allows them to sustain their livelihoods. This observation, made at an interim stage, frames the court's expectation of the State's response.
Mr. G.S. Gill was also asked to place a present status report before the bench along with suggestions on how the farmers' problems can be addressed. Mr. Bharat Vyas was directed to submit the Union of India's and FCI's stand at the next hearing.
Outcome
The matter is listed for 30 July 2026. The bench made clear that no further time will be granted. If replies and affidavits are not filed by that date, the concerned officer-in-charge is required to appear personally before the court. The petition has been pending since 2018, and the bench's strict timeline reflects its view that delay is no longer acceptable.