Under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001, does merely filing infringement suits against farmers justify revoking a variety's registration under Section 34(h)?
Coram: J. B. Pardiwala; K. Vinod Chandran
Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 — s.34(h) — s.39(1)(iv) — Revocation of registration — Vexatious suits — Farmers' rights — Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 — s.34(h) — Revocation for vexatious suits — Held: Filing suits to protect statutory rights is not, by itself, vexatious. Revocation under section 34(h) needs proof the suits were a predatory tactic. (¶6) Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 — s.39(1)(iv) — Individual farmer's defence preserved — Held further: Section 39(1)(iv) protection — to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell farm produce short of branded seed — stays open to any farmer sued by the registrant. Petitions disposed of; High Court judgment undisturbed. (¶7, 8)
Under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001, does merely filing infringement suits against farmers justify revoking a variety's registration under Section 34(h)?
No. The Supreme Court held that filing suits to protect rights conferred under the Act is not, by itself, intimidatory or vexatious; revocation under Section 34(h) requires proof that the suits were instituted as a predatory tactic, and that proof must be raised and established before the appropriate forum.
Under Section 39(1)(iv) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001, can an individual farmer still claim the farmers'-rights exemption even after the Supreme Court declines to interfere with a revocation challenge?
Yes. The Court clarified that any individual farmer claiming protection under Section 39(1)(iv) — the right to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell farm produce including protected seed, short of selling branded seed — remains entitled to raise and prove that protection in any proceeding the registrant initiates against that farmer.
What did the Supreme Court finally decide in Kavitha Kuruganti's challenge against PepsiCo's plant variety registration?
The Special Leave Petitions were disposed of, with the Court declining to interfere with the High Court's judgment upholding the finding that Section 34(h) was not attracted, while clarifying that individual farmers may still assert Section 39(1)(iv) protection in any future infringement proceeding, and that the registrant is not restrained from pursuing its own legal remedies.
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
above case is very narrow.
The first respondent applied for registration under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001[^1], describing FL 2027 as a new variety seed with the date of first commercial sale indicated to be 17.12.2009; based on an Assignment Deed dated 26.09.2003 by the original breeder, to a company in the United States of America, which is an affiliate of the first respondent.
The petitioner herein, canvassing the rights of individual farmers, approached the authority for a revocation under Section 34 of the Act. The revocation order passed was challenged by the first respondent before the High Court in an appeal, as provided under the Act. The learned Single Judge held in favour of the first respondent in certain aspects and sustained the revocation order on some other aspects. Both the petitioner and the first respondent filed appeals before the High Court. A common judgment passed is impugned before us.
The controversy arising is as to the application of Section 39 (1)(iv) which is extracted hereinbelow: - “39. Farmers’ rights. —(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, — (iv) a farmer shall be deemed to be entitled 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: Provided that the farmer shall not be entitled to sell branded seed of a variety protected under this Act.”
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that this was the concern all along agitated by the petitioner, which has not been dealt with by the High Court. On the contrary, we find from the impugned order that the High Court has dealt with Section 39(1)(iv) of the Act and the allegation of public interest leading to a revocation under Section 34(h) of the Act.
The High Court has clearly found that the allegation was raised merely with reference to various suits filed by the first respondent, alleging infringement against individual farmers. The High Court, according to us, rightly found that there was nothing to establish that these suits were vexatious or that they had been instituted as a predatory tactic of the first respondent. Filing of suits for the protection of rights conferred under the statute, per se cannot be held to be intimidatory or vexatious. Section 34(h) of the Act, hence, was not attracted, according to the High Court and if there was any allegation of a vexatious suit, then the same would have to be raised and proved at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum, held the High Court. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the same.
Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner is not agitating a personal cause and is attempting to protect the interest of the farmers, we only make it clear that any individual farmer who claims protection under Section 39(1)(iv) of the Act, would be entitled to do so in any proceeding initiated by the first respondent and prove that they come under its cover. However, we make it clear that we cannot restrain the first respondent from taking legal remedies, if their rights are infringed.
With the above observation, the Special Leave Petitions are disposed of finding no reason to interfere with the judgment in appeal passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .……………………………... J. (J. B. PARDIWALA) ..………….…………………. J. (K. VINOD CHANDRAN) NEW DELHI; AUGUST 05, 2026.
Can criminal proceedings be used to recover a disputed sum of money where the dispute is essentially a civil money transaction?
2026 INSC 817 · Supreme Court of India
Under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is an Appellate Court obliged to decide an application for additional evidence before pronouncing its final judgment in the appeal?
2026 INSC 816 · Supreme Court of India
Under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is payment of the entire sale price at the time of execution necessary for a sale to be validly completed?
2026 INSC 814 · Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court decides something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeHeadnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy