The Karnataka High Court recently refused to stay a government order issued by the Government of Karnataka that fixed an additional sugarcane price above the floor price set by the Central Government for the 2025‑26 crushing season. The order increased the rate payable to farmers to approximately ₹4,300 per metric ton, significantly higher than the central government’s Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) of ₹3,550 per metric ton.
The petition challenging the order was filed by the South Indian Sugar Mills Association and several sugar mills in Karnataka. The mills argued that the government had no statutory authority to issue such an order and that they were already struggling financially. They contended that even paying the statutory FRP was difficult for them, and obliging them to pay the enhanced rate would threaten their financial viability. The mills sought an interim stay of the government order until the dispute over the higher price could be fully adjudicated.
A Single‑Judge bench of the Karnataka High Court, led by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, rejected the application for interim relief. The Court observed that it could not grant a stay without hearing from the State, which was a key party to the matter. The bench emphasized that the sugar mills depended heavily on the farmers for their operations, stating that without farmers, the mills would have no supply of sugarcane and could not function. The Court criticized any approach that sought to undermine farmers’ interests while mills profited from sugar and its by-products.
The core argument of the mills was that the government lacked authority to fix a price above the FRP. However, the Court did not accept this contention and held that the government’s order would remain operative. The Court refused to stay the enhanced price order and directed that the matter be relisted for further hearing on a scheduled date.
This ruling highlights the Court’s deference to the State’s authority in fixing sugarcane prices over and above the FRP, particularly when it seeks to protect farmers’ interests. By denying interim relief to the sugar mills, the Court allowed the enhanced price order to stand until the full challenge is heard and decided. The decision also underscores the judiciary’s view of balancing the interests of the agricultural sector against industrial concerns, ensuring that farmers receive fair compensation for their produce even in the face of opposition from sugar manufacturers.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.