THE PROTECTION OF

PLANT VARIETIES AND

FARMER’S RIGHTS ACT, 2001
 NUZIVEEDU SEEDS LTD. V. MONSANTO
TECHNOLOGY LLC (DELHI HC, DIVISION
BENCH)
 FACTS

• Monsanto had licensed its Bt Cotton Seed Technology to Indian seed companies, including
Nuziveedu Seed Limited (“Nuziveedu”), Prabhat Agri Biotech Limited and Pravardhan Seeds
Private Limited.
• Under the license agreement, these companies were supposed to sell certain seeds and pay a
contractually-agreed trait value to Monsanto.
• Later on, these seed companies demanded a reduction of this trait value because the Indian central
and state governments passed new price control orders fixing trait fees and the retail prices of seeds.
• Since Monsanto refused to reduce the trait value, in October 2015, a group of 8 Indian seed
companies, including Nuziveedu, stopped paying royalties to Monsanto.
• In response, Monsanto terminated their license agreements and in 2016, filed a suit in the Delhi
High Court against Nuziveedu and the others, seeking an injunction against them for patent and
trademark infringement.
 SINGLE JUDGE BENCH DECISION

• The court noted that the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act,
2001, and the Patents Act, 1970, are independent laws governing different
aspects of intellectual property rights in relation to plant varieties and
biotechnological invention.
• While the defendants argued that their actions were protected under the Plant
Varieties Act, the court maintained that the rights conferred by the Patents
Act, particularly in relation to patented traits and biotechnological
inventions, are distinct and not overridden by the provisions of the Plant
Varieties Act.
 DIVISION JUDGE BENCH DECISION

• “100. … In other words, the moment the DNA containing the nucleotide
sequence (subject patent) is hybridized to produce the transgenic
seeds/plants; the seeds/plants fall within the purview of the PV Act, and,
above, the process of creation of such seeds/plants are also excluded from
patentability as they squarely fall within the meaning of an "essentially
biological process" that is exempted from patentability within the meaning of
section 3(j), as well. For these reasons, it is held that the subject matter, the
concerned nucleotide sequence over which Monsanto has patent rights and
the process is unpatentable by reason of Section 3 (j) of the Patents Act.”
 DIVISION JUDGE BENCH DECISION

• “107. For the above reasons, it is held that the learned single judge’s conclusion that the PV Act
and the protective mechanism was an option, or alternative, which Monsanto could possibly have
resorted to, in addition to patent protection, under the Patents Act, is incorrect. These two
systems are not complimentary, but exclusive, in the case of all processes and products falling
under Section 3 (j) of the Patents Act. Nuziveedu’s contention with respect to patent exclusion,
therefore, succeeds. The court at the same time realizes that the patent granted to Monsanto has
stood all this while. Given these factors, it is held that Monsanto is at liberty to claim registration
under the PV Act, with the benefit of its filing the patent application, as far as the date of filing
and for purposes of Section 15 of the PV Act. In case Monsanto wishes to avail its right, the
application or applications (for registration) under the PV Act shall be preferred within three
months and decided in accordance with its provisions; such claims shall be decided in
accordance with law. Subject to these liberties, Nuziveedu‟s counter claim succeeds and is
allowed.”
Why do we need to protect plant varieties in IP
Law?
 NEED TO PROTECT

• Encouraging Innovation.
• Protecting Breeder/Farmer’s Investment.
• Global Collaboration.
• Improved Crop Varieties.
REASON FOR ADOPTING THE PPVFR ACT
 ARTICLE 27.3: PATENTABLE SUBJECT
MATTER

3. Members may also exclude from patentability:

(a) diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or
animals;
(b) plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological
processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and
microbiological processes. However, Members shall provide for the
protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis
system or by any combination thereof. The provisions of this subparagraph
shall be reviewed four years after the date of entry into force of the WTO
 PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION IN THE
INTERNATIONAL FRONT

• The International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants,

1961, revised in 1972, 1978 and 1991 (PPVFR Act largely based on this)
• The International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture, 1983 (principle of genetic resources being the common heritage of
humanity).
• The Convention on Biological Diversity, 1993 (affirmed a country’s
sovereignty over its biological resources).
• The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture,
2001 (promotion of bio-conservation, sustainable use, food security and benefit
 PPVFR ACT

• Enacted in 2001.
• Objective of the Act, as mentioned in the preamble:
a. To provide an effective system for protection of Plant varieties and rights of farmers and plant
breeders.
b. To recognize and protect the rights of farmers in respect of the contribution made at any time in
conserving, improving and making available plant genetic resources for the development of new
plant varieties.
c. To accelerate agricultural development in the country, protect plant breeders’ rights, stimulate
investment for research and development in public/private sector for development of plant variety
and
d. To facilitate the growth of seed industry to ensure the availability of high quality seeds and
 PPVFR AUTHORITY

• In exercising its power under s.3(1), the Central Government established the PPVFR
Authority in the year 2005.
• Functions of the PPVFR Authority:
i. provide for registration of new and extant plant varieties.
ii. develop, characterise and document the registered varieties.
iii. create compulsory cataloguing facility for all varieties.
iv. ensure the registered varieties are available to farmers.
v. regulate the grant of compulsory licences.
vi. collect statistics with regard to plant varieties.
 DEFINITION

• Two persons defined as subjects of the Act – breeder and farmer.

• s.2(c): “breeder” means a person or group of persons or a farmer or group of
farmers or any institution which has bred, evolved or developed any variety;
• s.2(k): “farmer” means any person who—
(i) cultivates crops by cultivating the land himself; or
(ii) cultivates crops by directly supervising the cultivation of land through any other
person; or
(iii) conserves and preserves, severally or jointly, with any person any wild species
or traditional varieties or adds value to such wild species or traditional varieties
 WHAT IS A VARIETY?

• s.2(za): “variety”, means a plant grouping except micro-organism within a single

botanical taxon of the lowest known rank, which can be—
(i) defined by the expression of the characteristics resulting from a given
genotype of that plant grouping;
(ii) distinguished from any other plant grouping by expression of at least one of
the said characteristics; and
(iii) considered as a unit with regard to its suitability for being propagated, which
remains unchanged after such propagation,
and includes propagating material of such variety, extant variety, transgenic
 TYPES OF VARIETIES UNDER THE PPVFR
ACT, 2001
1. Essentially Derived Variety
s.2(i): (i) “essentially derived variety”, in respect of a variety (the initial variety), shall be
said to be essentially derived from such initial variety when it—
(i) is predominantly derived from such initial variety, or from a variety that itself is
predominantly derived from such initial variety, while retaining the expression of the
essential characteristics that results from the genotype or combination of genotype of such
initial variety;
(ii) is clearly distinguishable from such initial variety; and
(iii) conforms (except for the differences which result from the act of derivation) to such
initial variety in the expression of the essential characteristics that result from the genotype
or combination of genotype of such initial variety;
 TYPES OF VARIETIES UNDER THE PPVFR
ACT, 2001

2. Extant Variety
s.2(j): (j) “extant variety” means a variety available in India which is—
(i) notified under section 5 of the Seeds Act, 1966 (54 of 1966); or
(ii) farmers’ variety; or
(iii) a variety about which there is common knowledge; or
(iv) any other variety which is in public domain;
 TYPES OF VARIETIES UNDER THE PPVFR
ACT, 2001

a. Section 5 of Seeds Act, 1966

5. Power to notify kinds or varieties of seeds.—If the Central Government,
after consultation with the Committee, is of opinion that it is necessary or
expedient to regulate the quality of seed of any kind or variety to be sold for
purposes of agriculture, it may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare
such kind or variety to be a notified kind or variety for the purposes of this Act
and different kinds or varieties may be notified for different States or for
different areas thereof.
 TYPES OF VARIETIES UNDER THE PPVFR
ACT, 2001

b. Farmer’s Variety
s.2(l): “farmers’ variety” means a variety which—
(i) has been traditionally cultivated and evolved by the farmers in their fields;
or
(ii) is a wild relative or land race of a variety about which the farmers possess
the common knowledge;
 TYPES OF VARIETIES UNDER THE PPVFR
ACT, 2001
4. New Variety
s.15(3): NDUS Test.
• Novelty - not been sold or otherwise disposed of in India, earlier than 1 year (and
outside India, in case of trees and vines earlier than six years, or, in any other case,
earlier than four years).
• Distinctiveness - distinguishable by at least one essential characteristic from any
another variety in common knowledge.
• Uniformity - sufficiently uniform in its essential characteristics.
• Stability - if its essential characteristics remain unchanged after repeated propagation,
on, in the case of a particular cycle of propagation, at the end of each cycle.
MAHARASHTRA HYBRID SEED CO. V.
UNION OF INDIA
 FACTS

• The order of the Registrar, PPVFR Authority was challenged.

• The impugned order held that the parent lines of known hybrid varieties
could not be registered as "new" plant varieties under the PPVFR Act
because if a hybrid variety falls under the category of an extant variety that is
commonly known, then its parental lines cannot be considered novel for
registration.
• The main issue in this case is whether the parental lines of hybrid seeds can
be considered novel for registration under Section 15 of the Act if the hybrid
seeds derived from them have been commercially sold.
 CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONERS

• The petitioners argued that the hybrid seeds obtained from crossing the
parental lines are distinct in traits and characteristics from the parent lines.
• They contended that the characteristics of the hybrid variety are different
from the parental lines, and therefore, the parent lines should not be
considered the same as the hybrid variety.
• The petitioners also asserted that the development and sale of hybrid seeds
should not be seen as exploitation of the parental lines, as the sale of hybrid
seeds does not involve the transfer of title of the parent lines to third parties.
 CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENTS

• The Respondents defended the decision of the Registrar.

• They argued that if the hybrid seeds derived from the parent lines have been
sold or disposed of for producing the hybrid variety, then the parent lines
cannot be deemed novel under the Act.
• The respondents emphasized the need to interpret the Act in a manner that
aligns with the legislative intent of protecting intellectual property rights and
promoting the development of new plant varieties.
 DECISION

• “28. It is settled law that the intention of the Legislature must be discerned
from the plain language of a Statute. In my view, the plain language of
Section 15(3)(a) of the Act indicates that a variety would be novel if
harvested material of a variety has not been sold, or otherwise disposed of
prior to the specified period. It would, obviously, follow that the plant would
cease to conform to the novelty criteria as required for being registered as a
new variety, if the propagating material/harvested material of the variety was
sold or otherwise disposed of for the purposes of exploitation of such variety
prior to the specified period.”
 DECISION

• “35. In my view, a plain reading of Section 15(3) of the Act would indicate that if the seeds of parent lines have been commercially sold, the
breeders cannot claim the parent lines to be novel. As I see it, even if one was to consider that language of Section 15(3) of the Act was
ambiguous on the issue, the same would have to be resolved against the petitioners. This is so because it is well settled that in case of ambiguity
in the language of a statute, a purposive interpretation that furthers the intention of the Legislature must be adopted. The Legislative intent of
the Act is to protect the rights of the farmers' and plant breeders. India had ratified the TRIPS agreement and, therefore, was obliged to protect
the intellectual property rights in certain plant varieties. The protection as envisaged under the Act is to provide certain exclusive rights for a
specified period of time. By virtue of Section 24(6) of the Act, the registration certificate issued in respect of a plant variety could be extended
for a period up to 18 years from the date of registration in case of trees and vines and 15 years from the date of registration in other cases. In the
case of extant varieties the validity of the registration certificate can be extended upto 15 years from the notification of that variety under
Section 5 of the Seeds Act, 1966. In other words, the Parliament in its Legislative wisdom considered that providing exclusivity as specified
under Section 24(6) of the Act was sufficient protection to the plant breeders. If the provisions of Section 15(3) of the Act are read in a manner
as suggested by the petitioners, the effect would be to extend that period of protection many times over. In the first instance, a breeder would
get protection in respect of the hybrid variety and assuming that there are two parent lines, the breeder could just before the expiry of the
Registration Certificate in respect of a hybrid variety, register one of the parent variety and thus, extend its period of exclusivity for a further
period of 15/18 years because protection of even one parent line would practically ensure exclusive rights in relation to the hybrid variety. In
the same manner, before expiry of the registration period of that parent line, the breeder could register the other parent line as a new variety. In
this manner a breeder could extend the protection for a period up to maximum 45/54 years instead of 15/18 years as contemplated under the
Act. Clearly, this is not the legislative intent of the Parliament.”
 PIONEER OVERSEAS CORPORATION VS
CHAIRPERSON, PROTECTION OF PLANT
VARIETIES AND FARMERS’ RIGHTS (DELHI
HC SINGLE JUDGE DECISION)
 FACTS

• This case involves a dispute over the registration of a plant variety, KMH-50,
by Kaveri Seeds Company Limited. Pioneer Overseas Corporation, a
subsidiary of Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc., challenged the registration
of KMH-50 on the grounds that it was not distinct from their own variety,
30V92.
• The Authority accepted Kaveri's application for registration of KMH-50
based on the results of the Distinctiveness, Uniformity, and Stability (DUS)
Test. Pioneer alleged that Kaveri had misappropriated the germplasm of their
variety, 30V92, and that the Registrar had not considered this allegation in
the registration process.
 FACTS

• Pioneer's application for conducting a special test to further assess the

distinctiveness of the two varieties was rejected by the Registrar.
• The Registrar's decision was based on the grounds that the DUS Test had
established the distinctiveness of KMH-50 and that a special test was not
necessary since both varieties had qualified for registration based on the DUS
Test.
• Pioneer challenged the Registrar's decision to reject their application for a
special test, as well as the decision to register KMH-50, in the High Court.
 CONTENTION OF PETITIONERS

• Procedural reasons prevented Kaveri’s application from proceeding, as it had abandoned under
Section 21(4) of the Act. The provision requires that Kaveri should have filed a counter-claim
to the opposition within two months of receiving notice of the opposition but did not do so.
• The Registrar had failed to consider scientific evidence like pedigree information, DNA
fingerprinting and research records.
• Kaveri’s variety was not examined for DUS criteria before acceptance for registration.
• Under Section 18 of the Act, Kaveri had failed to provide the requisite information to the
Registrar about the parental lines and veracity of genetic material of its variety.
• The results of the DUS tests were not conclusive of the two varieties being different. It said
that the registrar had failed to compare the characteristics of two varieties, especially
distinctiveness.
 CONTENTION OF RESPONDENTS

• Procedural lapses did not prevent the Registrar from considering the opposition on
merits.
• The Registry did not have to conduct a DUS test before accepting an application, and a
DUS test for a variety could be conducted at any stage of the application.
• Once DUS criteria were met by Kaveri’s variety, there was no requirement to compare
it with Pioneer’s variety. In any event, the DUS test reports clearly established that the
two varieties were distinct from each other.
• Pioneer’s request for a special test (DNA test) was not acceptable. It claimed that under
Rule 20 of the 2003 Rules accompanying the Act, DNA tests could only be conducted
when DUS tests failed to establish distinctiveness. It also said that a request for a DNA
test could only be made by an applicant and not any third party.
 DECISION

• Rule 29 does not preclude a third party opposing registration of a variety

from requesting and relying on results of the special test (DNA test).
• The court also said that even if a particular variety met the DUS criteria, the
application for that variety could still be challenged by an opposition. The
implication of the court’s decision appears to be that DUS tests are not
binding and conclusive, and do not preclude oppositions.
• The court also held that once an applicant failed to file counter statement to
an opposition, the application would be deemed to be rejected.
 DECISION

• The court also held that the scheme of the Act is unequivocal. The Registrar must
examine an application before accepting it for registration. Once the application
has been accepted for registration and no opposition is filed, the law says that the
Registrar “shall” register the application. The use of the word “shall”, according to
the court, makes the provision mandatory, giving no discretion to the Registrar to
reject the application. An applicant must satisfy the Registrar that the DUS test has
been complied with before the Application is accepted for registration of a variety.
• Pioneer’s application for conducting the special test in the nature of DNA profiling
of the variety 30V92 and KMH-50 was restored to the file of the Registrar for
considering it afresh, if necessary.
 DECISION

• The Court held that prima facie, even by evaluating the DUS test results it
indicates that the characteristics, in respect of which the two varieties were
found to have qualified the DUS test, are more or less identical when
compared inter se. However, Court was not inclined to examine the said
controversy any further as the same had not been considered in any of the
impugned orders. However, it was held obvious that if the question whether
the variety 30V92 and KMH-50 were different and distinct from each other
was required to be determined, a meaningful examination of their essential
characteristics would be relevant.
 EXCLUSION FROM PROTECTION

• s.29(1): Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no registration of a

variety shall be made under this Act in cases where prevention of commercial
exploitation of such variety is necessary to protect public order or public
morality or human, animal and plant life and health or to avoid serious
prejudice to the environment.
• s.29(3): Notwithstanding anything contained under sub-section (2) and sub-
sections (1) and (2) of section 15, no variety of any genera or species which
involves any technology which is injurious to the life or health of human
beings, animals or plants shall be registered under this Act.
 GROUNDS FOR OPPOSITION

• s.21(3): Opposition to the registration under sub-section (2) may be made on

any of the following grounds, namely:—
(a) that the person opposing the application is entitled to the breeder’s right
as against the applicant; or
(b) that the variety is not registrable under this Act; or
(c) that the grant of certificate of registration may not be in public interest; or
(d) that the variety may have adverse effect on the environment.
• The opposition has to be filed three months from the advertisement of the
application for registration (s.21(2)).
 CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION

• s.24. Issue of certificate of registration.—(1) When an application for

registration of a variety (other than an essentially derived variety) has been
accepted and either—
(a) the application has not been opposed and the time of notice of opposition
has expired; or
(b) the application has been opposed and opposition has been rejected,
the Registrar shall register the variety.
• This registration is maintained in the National Register of Plant Varieties
(s.13).
 TIME PERIOD OF CERTIFICATE OF
REGISTRATION

• s.24(6)
- Trees and Vines: Minimum of 9 years and can be extended to 18 years.
- Other Crops: Minimum of 6 years and can be extended to 15 years.
• Both the time periods are calculated from the date of registration of the
variety.
• There is an annual fee which has to be paid by the breeder (s.35).
 INFRINGEMENT

• s.64: Infringement.—Subject to the provisions of this Act, a right established under

this Act is infringed by a person—
(a) who, not being the breeder of a variety registered under this Act or a registered
agent or 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;
(b) who uses, sells, exports, imports or produces any other variety giving such variety,
the denomination identical with or deceptively similar to the denomination of a variety
registered under this Act in such manner as to cause confusion in the mind or general
people in identifying such variety so registered.
 RELIEFS FOR INFRINGEMENT

• s.65: Infringement case to be filed before a District Court.

• S.66: Reliefs which can be given are:
1. Injunction, and
2. Damages, or a Share of the Profits.
• s.70, 71, 72 and 73: Criminalizes different offences relating to plant varieties
and imposes different forms of punishments, including imprisonment and/or
fines.
 RIGHTS PROVIDED UNDER THE ACT

• Four types of rights granted under the PPVFR Act:

1. Breeders’ Rights
2. Researchers’ Rights
3. Farmers’ Rights
4. Rights of Communities
 BREEDERS’ RIGHTS

• s.28
- An exclusive right on the breeder or his successor, his agent or licensee, to
produce, sell, market, distribute, import or export the variety registered under
the Act.
- A breeder may authorize any person to produce, sell, market or otherwise
deal with the variety registered under this Act.
- A breeder shall enjoy provisional protection of his variety against any
abusive act committed by any third party during the period between fi lling of
application for registration and decision taken by Authority.
 RESEARCHERS’ RIGHTS

• s.30
(a) A person can use any registered variety for conducting experiments or
research.
(b) A person can use any registered variety as an initial source of variety for
the purpose of creating other varieties.
Authorization of the breeder of a registered variety is required where repeated
use of such variety as parental line is done for commercial production of other
new developed variety.
 FARMERS’ RIGHTS

• This is one of the most important characteristics which distinguishes it from

all other international conventions and treaties, which usually treat farmer’s
rights as a privilege and not a right in itself as compared to the rights granted
to the breeders.
• The Act treats the farmer as plant breeder so far as the farmers’ variety is
concerned and they can register them under the Act without paying any fee.
• Chapter VI – Farmer’s Rights
 FARMERS’ RIGHTS

• s.39: Right to register a plant variety

- Right to register a plant variety
- Right of recognition and reward from the Gene Fund if the farmer is
involved in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild
relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and
preservation.
- Right to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce
including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he
was entitled before the coming into force of this Act.
 FARMERS’ RIGHTS

- Right to claim compensation in case of a failure in expected performance of

a registered variety under given conditions
- Protection from innocent infringement, if the farmer was not aware of the
existence of such a right (s.42).
- Exempted from paying any fees in any proceedings before the Authority or
the Registrar or the High Court under the PPVFR Act.
 RIGHTS OF COMMUNITIES

• s.41
- Right to receive compensation by villagers or local communities for their
significant contribution in the evolution of a variety which has been registered
under the Act.
- Who can raise the claim - Any person/ group of persons/governmental or
non-governmental organization, on behalf of any village/local community in
India.
- Any compensation granted shall be deposited by the breeder of the variety
in the Gene Fund.
 COMPULSORY LICENSING

• Chapter VII: Compulsory Licensing

• S.47: The Authority ensures that the seeds of registered varieties are available to
farmers and provide for compulsory license.
• Requirements for granting compulsory license:
- Three years have expired from the date of issue of a certificate of registration of a
variety.
- Reasonable requirements of the public for seed or other propagating material of
the variety have not been satisfied.
- The seed or other propagating material of the variety is not available to the public
 REVOCATION OF PROTECTION

• s.34: Revocation of protection on certain grounds

(a) that the grant of the certificate of registration has been based on incorrect information furnished by the applicant;
(b) that the certificate of registration has been granted to a person who is not eligible for protection under this Act;
(c) that the breeder did not provide the Registrar with such information, documents or material as required for
registration under this Act;
(d) that the breeder has failed to provide an alternative denomination of the variety which is the subject matter of the
registration to the Registrar in case where the earlier denomination of such variety provided to the Registrar is not
permissible for registration under this Act;
(e) that the breeder did not provide the necessary seeds or propagating material to the person to whom compulsory
licence has been issued under section 47 regarding the variety in respect of which registration certificate has been issued
to such breeder;
(f) that the breeder has not complied with the provisions of this Act or rules or regulations made thereunder;
(g) that the breeder has failed to comply with the directions of the Authority issued under this Act;
PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. V.
KAVITHA KURUGANTI
 FACTS

• On February 18, 2011, the appellant applied to the Plant Variety Authority for the
registration of a chipped potato variety, FL 2027, under the ‘new’ category.
• The Registrar raised queries about the application, including the date of
commercialization as well as the fact that the variety falls under the 'extant'
category rather than the 'new' category.
• The appellant filed the revised application; however, due to a bona fide mistake
ticked the box in the form depicting FL 2027 as a 'new variety', with the date of
commercialization as 17.12.2009 in India.
• The Registrar granted registration to FL 2027 on 01.02.2016, treating it as an
'extant variety'.
 FACTS

• The respondent had filed an application under Section 34 of the Act before the
Authority for revocation of registration granted in favor of the appellant.
• The Authority allowed the application and passed the impugned order revoking
the registration of FL 2027 under Section 34(a), (b), (c), and (h) of the Act.
• Due to revocation of registration, the appellant's application for renewal of
registration was also rejected vide Authority letter dated 11.02.2022.
• Being aggrieved by the Authority's decision, the appellant filed the present
appeal under section 56 of the Act challenging the impugned order and the
letter.
 CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

• According to Section 34(a) of the Act, the Authority can cancel a registration based on false information. The
appellant argued that the Authority misunderstood, as the registration error (checking “new variety” instead
of “extant”) didn’t impact the registration, given the Registrar categorized FL 2027 correctly as an “extant
variety.” Additionally, the order wrongly cited application deficiencies related to an unintentional error in the
first sale date, which the appellant claimed had no bearing on the registration.
• Under Section 34(b), the certificate can be revoked if granted to someone not entitled to protection. The
appellant argued the order incorrectly deemed their assignment deed unlawful due to unstamping and lack of
witnessing, stating it was completed in the USA where such formalities aren’t required. Section 34 prohibits
revocation when the Registrar accepts it without objection.
• Section 34(c) deals with failure to provide necessary information. The appellant contested that the order
misunderstood the legality of their assignment deed, completed in the USA, where stamping and registration
aren’t mandatory.
• Section 34(h) allows cancellation if issuance isn’t in the public interest. The appellant argued that using this
section was an error, as the suit against farmers, ineligible under Section 39(1)(iv), shouldn’t be
retrospectively deemed against public interest in 2021 when the appellant had a valid certificate and no
revocation application during the litigation filing.
 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT

• The respondent contended that the impugned order is free of errors. The appellant had purposefully
checked the box for ‘new variety’ instead of ‘extant variety’. Furthermore, the respondent contended
that, according to documents, the first sale of FL 2027 in Chile occurred in 2002, and thus the variety
became public domain after 2017, i.e., fifteen years after the date of first sale. As a result, the appellant
would be ineligible to renew his registration. As a result, the Authority has correctly invoked Section
34 (a).
• The respondent contended that there was no legitimate assignment of such right in the appellant’s favor
and that the appellant had not produced any documentation proving its entitlement to file the
application. Moreover, the breeder of the candidate variety did not sign PV-2, the required form
proving the authority to submit an application. Therefore, the Authority properly invoked section 34(b)
and (c) to withdraw the registration that had been granted in the applicant’s favor.
• The respondent contended that the appellant had misused the registration by suing several Gujarati
potato producers and demanding disproportionately large and unreasonable compensation. The
intention behind such crimes was to terrorize, harass, and deeply unsettle the farmers. As a result, the
registration was properly canceled in accordance with Section 34(h) of the Act.
 SINGLE JUDGE BENCH DECISION

• The appellant's misrepresentation of FL 2027 as a 'new variety' instead of an 'extant variety' was an
error in the revised application. The Registrar should have called for an amendment, and the
mistake could not be grounds for revoking the registration under Section 34(a) of the Act.
• The date of the first sale of the variety is crucial information, and the applicant must provide correct
details, failing which the registration can be revoked under Section 34(a). The appellant filed the
proof of right form (PV-2) without the breeder's or FLNA's signature, and the breeder did not
provide the required documents for registration.
• The application filed by the appellant had deficiencies, and the Authority was justified in revoking
the registration under Section 34(b) and (c) of the Act.
• The appellant's filing of litigations against farmers, even if frivolous, does not satisfy the test of the
grant of registration not being in the public interest. The Authority erred in revoking the registration
under Section 34(h).
• The court dismissed the appeal without cost, emphasizing that applications for variety registration
should strictly conform to the Act, Rules, and Regulations, and the onus of providing correct
 DIVISION JUDGE BENCH DECISION

• The Division Bench, agreeing with PepsiCo ruled that plant variety cannot be revoked on
grounds not related to its validity and protectability.
• They highlighted those discrepancies in the application, such as the date of first sale,
authorization to file, and wrongful entry, are not fatal to the plant variety’s registration, as
they were not intentional.
• The Division Bench, however, agreed with the single-judge’s finding that the mistake of
describing FL 2027 as a “new” category was remediable and again not fatal to the cause,
as the Registrar had processed it as relating to the “extant” category.
• The renewal application by the Appellant will stand restored on the Registrar’s file.
• The Division Bench clarified that filing lawsuits to enforce plant variety against farmers is
not a violation of public interest.
PROBLEMS WITH THE INDIAN PLANT
VARIETIES REGIME
- PROF. (DR.) N.S. GOPALAKRISHNAN
 PROBLEMS WITH THE INDIAN PLANT
VARIETIES REGIME (I)
• Registration Applications
- Total applications filed until May 7th, 2018: 16,104
- Categories of applications: new varieties, extant varieties, and farmers' varieties
- Certificates issued by February 28th, 2018: 3,074
- 450 were for “new varieties”: Most of these were given to the Indian Council of Agricultural Research
and 35 private seed companies.
- Not a single individual got registered for a new variety.
- Applications closed or rejected by May 7th, 2018: around 400
- Significant number of applications filed in the last two years, especially in extant and farmers' varieties
categories
- Extant varieties including varieties notified under section 5 of the Seed Act 1966 and varieties that are
 PROBLEMS WITH THE INDIAN PLANT
VARIETIES REGIME (I)
• Ownership of registered extant varieties:
- Public funded institutions (e.g., ICAR, Agricultural Research Institutions, State Universities): more than
80%
- Private seed industries (national and multinational): remaining percentage.
• Registration of VCK (Varieties Commonly Known):
- Total VCK registered: 320
- Registered by private industries including Monsanto India Ltd., Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co., Rasi Seed
Pvt., Nirmal Seed Pvt., Nuziveedu Seed Ltd., etc.
- Not a single farmers’ variety that is registered in the category of extant variety
- No regulations for “other varieties in public domain” and no applications.
- 80% of the applications closed/rejected is also for “extant varieties”.
 PROBLEMS WITH THE INDIAN PLANT
VARIETIES REGIME (I)
• Problems faced by farmers:
1. Complex Registration Process:
- There are requirements for providing technical details and declarations about the variety.
- The process is unfriendly to farmers and excludes certain traditional varieties, such as wild
relatives or landraces, from protection.
- Farmers need assistance from experts like lawyers/scientists to navigate the registration process.
2. Exclusion of Traditional Varieties:
- The system excludes traditional varieties that do not fit the criteria of identifiable farmers,
groups, or communities.
- This exclusion limits the protection of traditional varieties that have been cultivated and
conserved over generations.
 PROBLEMS WITH THE INDIAN PLANT
VARIETIES REGIME (I)
3. Limited Duration of Protection:
- The exclusive rights granted to registered extant and farmers' varieties are
valid for only 15 years from the date of registration.
- After this period, the varieties move into the public domain, potentially
depriving farmers of long-term benefits.
4. Private Industry Exploitation:
- Private seed industries are making serious attempts to benefit from the
enclosure movement of publicly available varieties.
- There is a concern that private industries may exploit traditional varieties for
commercial gain, rather than benefiting the farming community.
 PROBLEMS WITH THE INDIAN PLANT
VARIETIES REGIME (I)
5. Lack of Community Ownership:
- A limited number of farmers' varieties are registered in the name of communities,
with a substantial number registered in the name of individual farmers.
- The lack of community ownership may hinder collective benefits and sharing of
resources among farming communities.
6. Need for Clarity and Revisiting Norms:
- There is a call for revisiting norm-setting practices and procedures to bring more
clarity to the registration process.
- The current system may not adequately protect the interests of farmers and farming
communities in the long run.