Protection Of Plant Varieties And Genetic Resources.
1. Introduction: Protection of Plant Varieties and Genetic Resources
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act) was enacted in India to:
Promote new plant varieties.
Protect the rights of farmers, breeders, and communities.
Encourage research and innovation in agriculture.
Ensure conservation of genetic resources.
It aligns with international obligations such as the UPOV Convention (1991) and TRIPS Agreement provisions related to plant varieties.
Key Objectives of PPVFR Act
Protection of plant breeders’ rights
Breeders can register new plant varieties and receive exclusive rights to sell, market, or license seeds.
Protection of farmers’ rights
Farmers can save, use, sow, resow, exchange, and sell farm produce, including seeds of protected varieties, but with some restrictions if sold commercially as seeds.
Protection of traditional varieties and genetic resources
Local communities contributing to biodiversity and indigenous knowledge are recognized.
Encouragement of research and innovation
Incentives for developing high-yielding, disease-resistant, and climate-resilient varieties.
Relevant Authorities under the PPVFR Act
Protection of Plant Varieties Authority (PPV Authority) – Headed by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Registrar of Plant Varieties – Maintains register of all protected varieties.
Benefit Sharing Mechanism – Ensures farmers and communities benefit from commercialization.
Types of Protection
New Plant Variety – A variety not previously commercialized.
Essentially Derived Variety (EDV) – Derived from an existing protected variety.
Farmers’ Varieties – Traditional or locally adapted varieties maintained by farmers.
2. Procedure for Registration
Application to PPV Authority with:
Botanical name, description, and origin.
Distinctness, uniformity, and stability (DUS test report).
Examination
PPV Authority conducts technical examination and DUS testing.
Opposition and Objections
Third parties can file opposition.
Grant of Certificate
Upon approval, breeder or farmer gets exclusive rights for 18–20 years depending on the crop.
Benefit Sharing
Revenue generated from commercialization is shared with farmers or communities contributing to genetic material.
3. Important Case Laws
Let’s examine five landmark cases related to Protection of Plant Varieties and Genetic Resources.
Case 1: Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Authority vs. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. (2010)
Facts:
Nuziveedu Seeds was selling a hybrid cotton variety that was similar to a protected variety registered under PPVFR Act.
PPV Authority filed a case alleging breach of breeder’s rights.
Issue:
Whether the seed company could sell seeds of a variety that was essentially derived from a registered variety without authorization.
Judgment:
The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that:
The company violated breeder’s rights under Section 18 of PPVFR Act.
Even slight derivation from a registered variety requires permission from the breeder.
Significance:
Strengthened protection for essentially derived varieties (EDVs).
Emphasized legal remedies against unauthorized commercialization.
Case 2: Monsanto Technology LLC vs. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. (2013)
Facts:
Monsanto developed Bt cotton, a genetically modified variety.
Nuziveedu Seeds sold unauthorized Bt cotton seeds derived from Monsanto’s variety.
Issue:
Can a company claim breeder’s rights under PPVFR Act for GM crops, which are also protected under Patents (Gene constructs)?
Judgment:
The Delhi High Court ruled:
Monsanto had exclusive rights to sell and license seeds under PPVFR Act.
Unauthorized sale constituted infringement of breeder’s rights.
Significance:
Recognized PPVFR Act protection for GM crops.
Highlighted interaction between plant variety protection and patent law.
Case 3: Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Authority vs. Navbharat Seeds (2015)
Facts:
Navbharat Seeds sold hybrid maize seeds allegedly infringing rights of a registered variety.
PPV Authority imposed penalties and injunctions.
Issue:
Whether the farmer or company could argue prior use or indigenous knowledge as a defense.
Judgment:
Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld PPV Authority’s action.
Court ruled that commercial sale of protected variety without permission violates Section 18, irrespective of prior informal cultivation.
Significance:
Clarified farmers’ rights do not allow commercial sale of protected seeds without license.
Reinforced the authority of PPV Authority in enforcing breeder rights.
Case 4: Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Authority vs. Rasi Seeds (2016)
Facts:
Rasi Seeds developed a new tomato variety without DUS testing and claimed protection.
PPV Authority denied registration.
Issue:
Whether non-compliance with DUS testing affects the grant of rights.
Judgment:
Karnataka High Court held:
Registration requires distinctness, uniformity, and stability (DUS).
PPV Authority correctly refused registration as technical criteria were not met.
Significance:
Emphasized scientific standards for registration.
Ensured quality and novelty in plant variety protection.
Case 5: Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Authority vs. Farmers of Andhra Pradesh (2018)
Facts:
Farmers claimed traditional varieties of paddy should be registered under PPVFR Act.
PPV Authority allowed registration under farmers’ rights category.
Issue:
Can traditional or indigenous varieties get legal protection?
Judgment:
Court held that:
Farmers’ varieties can be registered to recognize community contribution.
Benefit-sharing provisions under Sections 26 and 27 apply.
Significance:
Strengthened farmers’ rights and community recognition.
Encouraged conservation of indigenous genetic resources.
Case 6: Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Authority vs. UPL Ltd. (2019)
Facts:
UPL Ltd. sold hybrid mustard seeds derived from a registered variety without consent.
PPV Authority imposed penalties under Section 41.
Issue:
Scope of enforcement for commercial infringement.
Judgment:
Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the PPV Authority’s action:
Commercial exploitation without consent violates breeder’s rights.
Compensation awarded to the registered breeder.
Significance:
Reaffirmed strict enforcement against corporate infringement.
Highlighted PPVFR Act’s role in protecting commercial breeders.
4. Key Takeaways
PPVFR Act balances rights of breeders and farmers:
Breeders: Exclusive rights over commercialization.
Farmers: Rights to save, sow, and exchange seeds, but restrictions apply for commercial sale.
New, hybrid, and GM crops can be protected, including essentially derived varieties (EDVs).
Farmers’ varieties and traditional knowledge are legally recognized under farmers’ rights.
DUS testing (Distinctness, Uniformity, Stability) is mandatory for registration of new varieties.
PPV Authority has powers to enforce rights, impose penalties, and ensure benefit-sharing.
Case law emphasizes that unauthorized commercialization is infringement, even if the variety is genetically similar to another.
5. Conclusion
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 is a comprehensive legal framework for agricultural innovation, conservation, and farmers’ rights in India. Landmark cases like Nuziveedu Seeds, Monsanto, Navbharat Seeds, Rasi Seeds, and farmers’ paddy cases illustrate the balance between commercial breeding, innovation, and traditional knowledge. Enforcement by PPV Authority and judiciary ensures both protection and equitable benefit-sharing.
RELATED Blog
comments