Farmer groups warn MPs that Seeds Bill and trade deals could weaken control over traditional seeds
Farmer organisations raised concerns with Members of Parliament about the Draft Seeds Bill, 2025, and simultaneous intellectual-property (IP) demands in ongoing trade negotiations with the European Union and the United States
The groups argue that registration and paperwork requirements proposed in the draft Bill would be difficult for small farmers and community seed banks to meet, while large seed companies can comply more easily
Concerns were also raised that IP provisions sought in the EU and US trade talks could push India toward a stricter, UPOV 1991-style plant variety protection regime
The farmer groups proposed a "varieties of common knowledge" registry to protect traditional seed varieties held in India's germplasm collections from being claimed as proprietary commercial varieties
Meetings with individual Members of Parliament across party lines were planned to present these concerns ahead of further legislative consideration
The Seeds Act, 1966 and the Draft Seeds Bill, 2025
The Seeds Act, 1966 currently governs seed quality regulation in India, focused on certification and quality control of seeds sold in the market; it does not address plant variety intellectual property, which is separately governed by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights (PPV&FR) Act, 2001. The Draft Seeds Bill, 2025 is intended to replace the 1966 Act with an updated regulatory framework covering registration of varieties, mandatory quality standards, labelling and traceability (including QR codes), and registration of seed producers, processors, dealers and distributors.
Key Details
- Varieties already notified under the 1966 Act would be deemed registered under the new Bill; existing cultivated varieties get provisional registration for three years pending compliance
- The draft explicitly states it does not restrict a farmer's right "to grow, sow, re-sow, save, use, exchange, share or sell his farm seeds" of any registered variety, except under a brand name — mirroring the farmer-saved-seed exemption already present in the PPV&FR Act, 2001
- Proposed penalties for sale of sub-standard, misbranded or spurious seed include imprisonment of up to three years and a fine of up to ₹30 lakh
Farmer groups argue that even with the statutory right to save and exchange farm seed preserved on paper, the Bill's registration, documentation and traceability requirements create a practical compliance burden that community seed banks and small farmers — who lack legal and administrative resources — cannot meet as easily as organised seed companies.
PPV&FR Act, 2001 — India's Sui Generis Plant Variety Protection
India's Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 is India's response to the TRIPS Agreement's requirement (Article 27.3(b)) that WTO members protect plant varieties either through patents, a sui generis (standalone) system, or a combination of both. Rather than adopting the standard UPOV framework, India enacted its own law that simultaneously grants breeders' rights and explicit farmers' rights — including the right to save, use, sow, re-sow, exchange and sell (but not brand and sell) seed of a registered variety.
Key Details
- Enacted in 2001; became operational only in 2005, once the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Authority was established
- India's regime broadly conforms to the older UPOV 1978 model rather than UPOV 1991, which is materially more restrictive of farmers' seed-saving rights
- A farmer is also recognised as a potential "breeder" and can register a variety they have developed or improved, and is entitled to benefit-sharing and compensation if a registered variety fails to perform as claimed
Farmer groups' concern is that a shift toward UPOV 1991-style IP demands in trade negotiations would sit above and could effectively override the farmer protections built into India's existing PPV&FR framework, since UPOV 1991 recognises only registered commercial breeders and narrows the farm-saved-seed exemption.
UPOV 1978 vs UPOV 1991 — The Core Distinction
The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) offers two model conventions. The 1978 Act allows member countries to retain broad exceptions for farmers to save and re-use seed of protected varieties. The 1991 Act narrows this considerably — farm-saved seed is only permitted "within reasonable limits" at national discretion, extends breeders' rights to harvested material and, in some cases, downstream products, and lengthens the protection term.
Key Details
- India is not a member of UPOV and follows its own PPV&FR Act, 2001 framework instead, which is more farmer-friendly than either UPOV text
- UPOV 1991 requires "reasonable limits" and "safeguarding of the legitimate interests of the breeder" on any farm-saved-seed exception — unlike India's law, it does not guarantee this as an unqualified farmer right
- Global seed market concentration is often cited in this debate: four multinational firms are estimated to control roughly half of the global proprietary seed market
The farmer groups' warning centres on the possibility that IP chapters in trade agreements with the EU and US could require India to align its plant variety regime more closely with UPOV 1991 as a condition of market access, which would be a significant departure from the farmer-protective balance struck in the PPV&FR Act, 2001.
- PPV&FR Act enacted: 2001; operational (Authority established): 2005
- TRIPS basis for plant variety protection obligation: Article 27.3(b)
- Existing cultivated varieties' provisional registration period under the Draft Seeds Bill, 2025: 3 years
- Maximum penalty for sale of sub-standard/spurious seed under the draft Bill: imprisonment up to 3 years and fine up to ₹30 lakh
- Global proprietary seed market concentration cited by farmer groups: approximately 50% held by four corporations
- India's traditional seed samples held in national germplasm collections (NBPGR), cited by farmer groups: over 460,000 samples [Unverified]
- Trade negotiations cited as a channel for IP pressure: with the European Union and the United States