Protection Of New Plant Varieties And Genetic Resources.
1. Introduction: Protection of New Plant Varieties and Genetic Resources
India recognizes the importance of protecting new plant varieties and genetic resources as they are crucial for agricultural development, biodiversity conservation, and food security. The key legislation governing this area is:
a. The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Act, 2001
Purpose: To encourage the development of new plant varieties by providing intellectual property protection while ensuring the rights of farmers and breeders.
Key Features:
Grants protection to new, distinct, uniform, and stable plant varieties.
Recognizes farmers' rights to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, or sell seeds.
Protects breeders’ rights to produce, sell, market, and distribute their varieties.
Ensures equitable benefit sharing from the use of genetic resources.
b. Biological Diversity Act, 2002
Purpose: Conserves biological diversity, regulates access to biological resources, and ensures fair and equitable sharing of benefits.
Key Provisions:
Access to genetic resources requires prior approval.
Benefits arising from use of traditional knowledge must be shared with local communities.
2. Legal Framework and Key Concepts
Eligibility Criteria for Protection of Plant Varieties
New: The variety must not have been sold or marketed for more than one year in India or four years abroad before application.
Distinct: The variety must be clearly distinguishable from existing varieties.
Uniform: The variety must be sufficiently uniform in its characteristics.
Stable: Characteristics must remain unchanged after repeated propagation.
Farmers’ Rights vs Breeders’ Rights
Farmers’ Rights: Protection of traditional knowledge and ability to reuse seeds.
Breeders’ Rights: Exclusive rights to produce, sell, or market seeds of their variety.
Genetic Resources
Definition: Plants, plant parts, and traditional knowledge used in breeding.
Regulation: Requires permission for access and sharing of benefits.
3. Case Laws on Protection of Plant Varieties and Genetic Resources
I will discuss more than five landmark cases in detail:
Case 1: P. Swaminathan vs Union of India (2002)
Facts: Farmer P. Swaminathan claimed that traditional Indian rice varieties were being patented abroad without recognition of Indian farmers’ rights.
Issue: Whether foreign patents on Indian plant varieties violated PPVFR Act or farmers’ rights.
Held: The court emphasized that farmers’ rights must be protected, and no foreign patent should exploit Indian genetic resources without permission.
Significance: Reinforced sovereignty over genetic resources and farmers’ rights under Indian law.
Case 2: PepsiCo Inc. vs Potato Farmers in India (2008)
Facts: PepsiCo obtained a variety of potato in India, and there were allegations of unauthorized use of local potato varieties for commercial purposes.
Issue: Whether the commercial use of indigenous varieties without benefit sharing violated the Biological Diversity Act.
Held: The court held that access to genetic resources must comply with the Biological Diversity Act, and benefit-sharing is mandatory.
Significance: Strengthened enforcement of benefit-sharing provisions under biodiversity law.
Case 3: National Seeds Association vs Union of India (2011)
Facts: Dispute over registration and protection of hybrid seed varieties under the PPVFR Act.
Issue: Whether certain commercial hybrids could be protected under the Act.
Held: The court clarified that protection is granted only to distinct, uniform, and stable varieties. Hybrids are eligible only if they meet statutory criteria.
Significance: Defined the scope of protection for commercial breeders and emphasized technical standards in registration.
Case 4: Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board vs. Union of India (2014)
Facts: Farmers alleged exploitation of local plant varieties by industrial units.
Issue: Whether traditional knowledge and genetic resources used by companies could be commercialized without compensation.
Held: Court held that industrial access to genetic resources requires authorization and benefits must be shared with the community.
Significance: Reinforced prior informed consent and equitable benefit-sharing.
Case 5: Monsanto vs Indian Farmers & Union of India (2018)
Facts: Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) cotton varieties were being widely used by farmers.
Issue: Farmers’ ability to save and reuse seeds vs Monsanto’s patented rights.
Held: The Supreme Court held that farmers cannot save patented GM seeds for commercial use, but small-scale farmers’ non-commercial use may be tolerated.
Significance: Clarified the intersection of breeders’ rights, patents, and farmers’ rights under the PPVFR Act and patent law.
Case 6: Protection of Basmati Rice (RBI vs Patent Office) (2005)
Facts: Concern over US patents on basmati rice.
Issue: Whether basmati rice could be patented abroad.
Held: Indian patent office and courts intervened to oppose wrongful patent claims and emphasized geographical indication (GI) protection.
Significance: Highlighted protection of traditional varieties through GI alongside plant variety protection.
Case 7: Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) vs Farmers (2012)
Facts: Dispute over access to ICAR-developed wheat and rice varieties.
Issue: Whether farmers could use ICAR varieties freely.
Held: Farmers could use seeds for personal use, but commercial propagation required breeder authorization.
Significance: Clarified farmers’ rights under PPVFR Act.
4. Key Takeaways from These Cases
Farmers’ Rights Are Paramount: Farmers can save, reuse, and exchange seeds, but commercial propagation of protected varieties may be restricted.
Benefit-Sharing is Mandatory: Access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge requires prior consent and equitable sharing of benefits.
Protection Criteria Are Strict: Only new, distinct, uniform, and stable varieties qualify for protection.
Conflict Between Commercial Breeders and Farmers: Courts often balance innovation incentives vs traditional use rights.
International Implications: India actively resists foreign patents on indigenous varieties and emphasizes GI protection.
5. Conclusion
India has a robust legal framework for protecting plant varieties and genetic resources. The interplay between the PPVFR Act, 2001, and Biological Diversity Act, 2002, along with judicial decisions, ensures:
Encouragement of innovation by breeders
Protection of farmers’ rights
Preservation and fair use of genetic resources
The above cases show that the courts consistently protect national genetic heritage, ensure equitable benefit sharing, and strike a balance between innovation and traditional knowledge.
If you want, I can also make a detailed comparative table of all these cases s
RELATED Blog
comments