State cannot restrict farmers’ choice of crops without specific statutory authority or sanction of law.

The petitioners, farmers in District Udham Singh Nagar, challenged an order dated 04.02.2026 issued by the District Magistrate (DM).

The impugned order prohibited farmers from sowing summer paddy in their fields, except in areas categorized as waterlogged.

The State defended the order by citing scientific deliberations involving Pantnagar Agriculture University, ICAR, and IIT Roorkee, which concluded that summer paddy in non-waterlogged fields depletes groundwater and increases soil pH values from 7 to 8.

The petitioners contended that the DM lacked the legal authority to restrict their choice of crops and noted that summer paddy is a short-duration crop requiring minimal pesticides.

The Court applied the fundamental principle of administrative law that every executive action taken by the State must have the "sanction of law".

In the absence of a specific statutory provision, the executive cannot impose restrictions on agricultural cultivation or a farmer's choice of crop.

The Court analyzed the validity of the DM’s order by testing it against the requirement of statutory authorization.

The Court held that scientific necessity does not substitute for legal authority.

The Court reasoned that since no law or statute exists that expressly prohibits or empowers the administration to prohibit the sowing of summer paddy, the DM’s order was ultra vires.

The Court emphasized that administrative discretion cannot override the absence of a legislative framework when curtailing the rights of individuals to utilize their land for their choice of crops.

The Court held that in the absence of statutory provisions, such restrictions cannot be imposed.

The petitioners were permitted to sow summer paddy in their respective fields based on their choice, regardless of whether the land is waterlogged.