Pro-Farmer Amendments in the PPV&FR Act 2001 and Rules 2003

To: 24th October 2025 
The Chairperson,
PPV&FR Authority,
New Delhi.

Subject: Pro-Farmer Amendments in the PPV&FR Act 2001 and Rules 2003

Dear Dr Trilochan Mohapatra,

Greetings! ASHA-Kisan Swaraj (Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture) is a pan-Indian citizens’ platform that works on a voluntary-basis to promote sustainable farm livelihoods and to secure farmers’ rights.
We went through the PPV&FR Authority’s 39th Meeting Minutes (meeting dated 3rd December 2024), and noted the Constitution of a Committee under Dr R S Paroda. This Committee was created to examine the PPV&FR Act 2001 and Rules, to suggest amendments. The Terms of Reference (ToR) indicate that the Committee was constituted: (i) to review various provisions of the Act in the light of inherent deficiencies, present-day challenges, and to further bolster the farmers’ interests; (ii) to make wider consultations with various stakeholders so as to identify the issues and needs to cater to their requirements effectively; (iii) to propose the amendments in relevant sections of the PPV&FR Act 2001; (iv) to address any other issue considered relevant by the Committee in proposing the Amendments in PPV&FR Act 2001. The 12-member Committee so constituted was also suggested that it may co-opt other experts/members. 
We believe that PPV&FR Authority should organise widespread processes of consultations to review and evaluate PPV&FR Act impact, especially in terms of bolstering farmers’ interests and to suggest suitable amendments. Pending such a process, we are for now sending two proposals which we have encountered in our own experience.

We are happy to note that the ToR very clearly mentions the need to bolster the farmers’ interests, and our proposals for amendments are towards this objective.

Before going to the specifics, the following existing provisions in the Act and the Rules are extracted, given their relevance.

I

Sec.39 is about Farmers’ Rights and begins with ‘Notwithstanding anything contained under this Act’…
Sec.28 is about “Registration to confer Right” to the certificate-holder, with the proviso making the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, into the owner of an exclusive right in the case of certain Extant Varieties.
The Authority’s general functions are included in Sec.8 of the Act. “Sec.8(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to promote, by such measures as it thinks fit, the encouragement for the development of new varieties of plants and to protect the rights of the farmers and breeders”.

Sec.7 states that the Chairperson is the Chief Executive of the Authority and shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be prescribed.
Sec.11 specifies the Power of the Authority, which is quasi-judicial in nature.
Sec. 63 is about the Financial and Administrative Powers of the Chairperson.
Sec. 64 is about Infringement, where a Farmer is not specifically excluded from Infringement charges even though the Section begins with “Subject to the provisions of this Act” (Sec.39(1)(iv) is one such provision with overriding effect, of course).
Sec.96(2)(v) gives Power to Central Government to make Rules, to provide for the powers and duties of the Chairperson under section 7 and Sec.96(2)(lxiii) gives power to the Central Government to make rules, to provide for the financial and administrative powers which the Chairperson shall exercise under Section 63. 

Three Amendments are needed – one in the Act, and two in the Rules 2003 and related regulations to ensure that no registered breeder proceeds against farmers (who have Sec.39 unambiguous and overarching rights), in the name of Sec.28 exclusive right, as has happened in the case of PepsiCo India Holdings and nine potato farmers of Gujarat against whom the Act was wrongly used. 

Proposed Amendment 1 – in Sec.64 Infringement

Here, the term farmer has to be introduced as highlighted below, to safeguard farmers from infringement related vexatious litigation. This is in addition to protection from innocent infringement (Sec.42) when farmers sell registered variety seed in a branded fashion unknowingly.

“64. Infringement.—Subject to the provisions of this Act, a right established under this Act is infringed by a person—
(a) who, not being a farmer or the breeder of a variety registered under this Act or a registered agent or a registered licensee of that variety, sells, exports, imports or produces such variety without the permission of its breeder or within the scope of a registered licence or registered agency without permission of the registered licensee or registered agent, as the case may be.”

Proposed Amendment 2 – Under Rule 21 Powers and Duties of the Chairperson:

Amend the current Rule 21(5) to include the bold-highlighted line:

“The Chairperson shall guide and facilitate the development of new plant varieties by protecting the rights of the breeders, researchers, farmers and community of farmers as provided under the Act. The Chairperson shall intervene whenever any information about contravention of Sec.39 (Farmers’ Rights) is brought to the Chairperson’s attention by any person including affected farmer(s), by issuing a refraining order on the registered breeder”.

This will then enable the Chairperson to uphold farmers’ interests.

Proposed Amendment 3 – Under Rule 3 Details of Particulars to be Furnished while making an Application or Representation:

Rule 3(1) requires all applications or representations to be made in the Forms specified in the First Schedule. Associated with this is Regulations of 2006, under which Form 1, for application for registration has been notified. Here, under Declaration along with Form 1, the following lines highlighted in Bold should be added, to pre-empt vexatious and malafide actions against Farmers.

“I/We hereby declare that I/We shall abide by all the provisions and guidelines of Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 and are particularly cognisant of the Rights of Farmers as given under Sec.39 of the Act.” 

II

One other amendment that is needed is to ensure that Farmers’ Varieties and all Extant Varieties remain as open source seeds and as commons, even as exclusive rights are given to eligible applicants for New Varieties under Sec.28.

This means that even without an authorisation by the registrant, public sector authorities shall be able to multiply and distribute registered Farmers’ Varieties and other Extant Varieties with due benefit sharing. Today, the registration of Farmers’ Varieties in the name of a single custodian farmer, or groups of farmers with many farmers anonymised under “others” from the same village, is fundamentally altering the status of common pool resources that have been shared as a bio-cultural heritage They are being privatised by registration on a first-come-first-served basis. 

This is antithetical to the way seeds were always open-source resources in Indian agriculture traditionally. This is creating tensions between farming communities, which have been custodians of the same variety. It is even becoming a legal hurdle in the public sector not being able to multiply and supply Farmers’ Varieties.
 
While individual farmers’ apriori rights are protected through Sec.39(1)(iv) when it comes to registered Farmers’ Varieties, public sector bodies like State Seeds Corporations are pointing to the fact that registered Farmers’ Varieties cannot be multiplied and supplied by them, without the authorisation of the registrant. 

Against this backdrop, the amendment proposed is the addition of the lines highlighted in bold, in Sec. 28, as highlighted below:

28. Registration to confer right.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a certificate of registration for a variety issued under this Act shall confer an exclusive right on the breeder or his successor, his agent or licensee, to produce, sell, market, distribute, import or export the variety:

Provided that such an exclusive right is not conferred in the case of registration of a Farmers’ Variety;

Provided that in the case of an extant variety, unless a breeder or his successor establishes his right, the Central Government, and in cases where such extant variety is notified for a State or for any area thereof under section 5 of the Seeds Act, 1966 (54 of 1966), the State Government, shall be deemed to be the owner of such right.”

Meanwhile, we also note that the Rules of the PPV&FR Act 2001 have not been upgraded to reflect enhancement of transparency and public accountability in the fullest way possible, with upgradation of technology to reflect open-data dashboards, Gene Fund disclosures, machine-readable publications of all documents including applications, opposition, benefit-sharing, compulsory licensing orders etc.

This should also be taken up in the amendments being proposed.

Thanking you,

Sincerely,

Usha Kumari S
Member, Steering Group

CC:
Registrar, Farmers’ Rights, PPV&FR Authority
Joint Secretary (Seeds), MoA&FW
Agriculture Commissioner, DoA&FW

Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA-Kisan Swaraj)
FOOD – FARMERS – FREEDOM