In Brief
The Supreme Court resolved a conflict between two earlier Constitution Bench decisions on whether Uttar Pradesh can fix a State Advised Price (SAP) for sugarcane above the minimum price set by the Central Government. The Court held that both Centre and State possess concurrent power to fix sugarcane prices under Entry 33 of List III. The Centre has fixed a 'minimum price' while the State can fix a higher 'advised price' without repugnancy. The earlier Tika Ramji case (1956) and the later U.P. Cooperative Cane Unions case (2004) are compatible: Tika Ramji was decided when no State pricing existed and under the 1955 Order allowing the Centre to fix 'price or minimum price', while the 1966 Order restricted the Centre to 'minimum price' only, leaving room for State-fixed advised prices. No reference to a larger Bench was needed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.