#agricultural law

Bombay HC Aurangabad Bench mandates the Maharashtra State Agricultural Prices Commission to actively recommend the difference between Central and State Minimum Support Prices (MSP) under GR 23/04/2015, transforming its advisory role into a binding obligation. This ruling ensures farmers receive the higher MSP, addressing systemic gaps in agricultural pricing policies and holding state bodies accountable for implementation.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has stayed coercive e-Mandi enforcement actions against commission agents pending final adjudication of their Section 59 application, establishing that administrative digital mandates cannot override pending statutory remedies under the 1972 Mandi Act. This ruling protects traditional mandi traders from unilateral digital compliance demands and reinforces the exhaustion principle in agricultural market regulation.

Uttarakhand High Court struck down an executive order restricting summer paddy cultivation on non-waterlogged land, ruling that crop choice restrictions require statutory sanction. The judgment reinforces that farmers' fundamental right to practice any occupation under Article 19(1)(g) cannot be curtailed by administrative fiat without legislative backing, setting a precedent for agricultural freedom.

Bombay High Court upholds compensation to farmers for crop loss due to defective seeds, affirming that technical non-compliance with committee norms cannot defeat claims without scientific rebuttal.

Rajasthan High Court holds Nagaur Central Cooperative Bank liable for crop insurance claims denied due to its clerical errors on the National Crop Insurance Portal under PMFBY.

The Rajasthan High Court directs farmers to exhaust administrative remedies under PMFBY's 2020 Office Memorandum before seeking judicial intervention, reinforcing procedural compliance.