A Lahore High Court division bench, led by Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, has directed the federal government to respond by May 14 to a plea challenging the wheat price policy and seeking a new pricing mechanism.
This move comes in response to a civil miscellaneous application filed alongside the main petition, which raises concerns about the current wheat pricing structure and its impact on farmers and the national economy.
The petitioner, Bilal Ahmad, raised arguments against the government's current wheat pricing policies, alleging exploitation and violation of constitutional principles.
Ahmad contended that the unnecessary import of wheat by the federal government, despite sufficient reserves, has caused significant financial losses to the exchequer.
According to his estimates, the government's actions have resulted in a loss of Rs1 billion.
He argues that the cost of cultivation per acre far exceeds the profits offered by the government, leaving farmers in a precarious financial position.
With the livelihoods of millions of farmers at stake, Ahmad asserts that urgent measures are needed to rectify the situation and ensure their economic well-being.
Moreover, Ahmad highlighted inconsistencies in the government's procurement targets and pricing mechanisms, alleging arbitrary decision-making and exploitation.
He argued that the current policy fails to account for inflation rates and rising input costs, leaving farmers vulnerable to financial exploitation by middlemen and other stakeholders in the agricultural supply chain.
In light of these concerns, Ahmad argues that the wheat policy violates several articles of the Constitution, including those pertaining to equality, fundamental rights and economic justice.
He contended that the policy's failure to extend the benefits of inflation to farmers, especially in the face of rising input costs, constitutes a case of exploitation and discrimination
Published in The Express Tribune, May 8th, 2024.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ