In Brief
This case resolved a doctrinal conflict in Indian constitutional law concerning the state's power to regulate sugarcane prices. The Supreme Court held that both the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Central Government may simultaneously fix sugarcane prices—the state setting an "advised" or "remunerative" price and the Centre a minimum price—without constitutional repugnancy if the State price is equal to or higher than the Centre's. The Court affirmed that sugar factories cannot escape paying the State-fixed price merely by claiming the purchase forms lacked voluntary consent, as the legal price exists independently of the form's execution.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.