Supreme Court of India· 05 August 2026

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)?

Kavitha Kuruganti v. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd

2026 INSC 811 · Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.10320-10321 of 2024
Coram: J. B. Pardiwala; K. Vinod Chandran

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.34(h) Protection of Plant Vari…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

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.

Headnote

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)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 6The 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.

Acts & Sections

s.34(h) Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001s.39(1)(iv) Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001

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.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

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?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections