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.

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)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Kavitha Kuruganti v. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India