CERTIFICATE:

The seminar submitted to the Department of Law, Manipur University, Canchipur for
Intellectual Property Rights as part of Internal assessment. It is based on my original work
carried out under the guidance of Assistant Professor Dr. Thounaojam Tapasini Devi
on 16-2-2023. The seminar has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree. The
material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the project has been duly
acknowledged.

Date: Signature of the Supervisor.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

I feel proud to place on record my humble gratitude towards our esteemed Assistant Professor, Dr.
Thounaojam Tapasini Devi, who has contributed her outstanding support and supervision to prepare
this seminar.

I would also like to acknowledge with pleasure, the unparalleled infrastructural support that I have
received from Department of law, Manipur University, Canchipur.

This seminar project bears testimony to the active encouragement and guidance from a host of friends
and well-wishers.

I am greatly indebted to the various writers, contributors, and all other resources from whose writings
and works I have taken help to complete this seminar.
CONTENTS:

1. Abstract.
2. Objectives.
3. Research Methodology.
4. Scope of the Study.
5. Introduction
6. Historical Background.
7. International Convention for Protection of New Varieties of Plants.(UPOV).
8. Indian Law- The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act 2001.
9. Visible advantages of the Act.
10. Objectives of the Act.
11. Other significant features of the Act.
12. Important provisions of the Act.
13. Projection of security of India.
14. Conclusion.
15. Suggestions.
16. References.
ABSTRACT

India has enacted Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001. The Act has 11
chapters and 97 clauses. . Section 27(3)(b) of TRIPs Agreement provided for protection of
patent varieties either by patent or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination
thereof. The Act provides for the establishment of effective system for protection of Plant
Varieties, the rights of the farmers and plant breeders and to encourage new varieties of plants
This seminar shall be dealing with various issues of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights. As it
has been considered necessary to recognize and protect the rights related to plant varieties in
order to encourage the development of new varieties of plants. Moreover to accelerate
agricultural development, it is necessary to protect plant breeders’ rights to stimulate
investment for research and development for the development of new plant varieties.

Keywords: Plant varieties, Farmers’ Rights, UPOV, Sui Generis

OBJECTIVES:

a) The objective of this seminar paper is to undertake a detailed study on the protection of
various Plant Varieties and Farmer Rights Act,2001.

b) To analyse the significant features of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Right
Act,2001.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The methodology adopted in this seminar project is both analytical and descriptive. Materials
and information were collected from various central enactments, international treaties and
conventions, and legal and other sources like published works, law journals, national journals,
and websites on relevant topics. The researcher has used the doctrinal method and has relied
on secondary sources for the content of the research paper.
INTRODUCTION

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Scientific advancement in the field of biotechnology and tissue culture has ushered in an
agricultural revolution. The development of new plant varieties and better-quality seeds has
accelerated agricultural development. It has, therefore, been Internationally recognized that
rights of plant breeders should not only be recognized but a sui generis legal mechanisms be
involved to protect theirs rights as well. At global level, the International Convention for
Protection of New Varieties (UPOV was concluded in 1961. The UTO – TRIPs 1 also
recognized the need to develop the legal system for the protection of plant varieties either
through patent or an effective sui generis system. India being a member of WTO also realized
the need to protect interests of plant breeders, farmers and promote conservations of genetic
resources and seed industry. It was thought proper to enact a separate suit generis legislation
for this purpose.2

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NEW

VARIETIES OF PLANTS (UPOV):

UPOV is an independent International and intergovernmental organisation with an

international legal personality with its own employers and has its headquarters in Geneva.
UPOV was completed in 1961 and entered into force in 1968. Because several countries
including the U.S.A were not members of the original convention the Act was revised in 23
October, 1978 and further revised in 1991 to clarify and extend the 1978 Act. There are 70
nations which became contracting parties/ Signatories to this convention 3. India is not one of
them. This convention is intended to ensure to ur breeder of a new plant variety the right to a
special title of protection or of a patent4 and to address a long- standing problem in patent law
: ie. The patent system’s relative inability to provide protection to plant breeders. It covers both
sexually and a sexually reproduced plants of botanical varieties5 . This convention is based on

1 TRIPs, art. 27(3)(b).

2 M.K. Bhandari, Law Relating to Intellectual Property Rights,(Central Law Publications, 6th edn.,2021).
3 Pratibha Brahmi, Sanjeev Saxena &B.S Dhillon,The Protection of Plant Varieties and Framers’ Rights Act of India, (Current Science, Vol.86, NO.3),10 Feb. 2004.
4 TRIPs, art,1&2.
5 TRIPs,art.4.
the principles of national protection, requirement of maintenance of minimum and uniform
standards by each member country and the right of priority. The UPOV does not provide for a
central filing system, therefore one must file a separate application in each member country to
obtain protection in that country 6 It also requires that each protected variety should be
designated by a distinct name that will become its generic designation 7. The minimum period
of protection granted to a breeder under the convention has 42 Articles dealing with rights
protected, scope of protection, rights of priority, and related aspects. The convention provides
for establishment of two permanent organs viz (i) the council, consisting of representatives
from member states and (ii) the Secretarial General entitled the office of the International
Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.

INDIAN LAW- The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act ,2001:

Being a member of UPOV convention and WTO, India was required to provide legal protection
to plant varieties and protect the rights of plant breeders. The main focus of the law is to define
plant breeders’ rights, extend protection to all categories of plants excluding micro-organism.
The Indian law is primarily based on UPOV convention. But it includes number of provisions,
not present in UPOV convention. For instance, it recognises the role of farmers as cultivators
and conservers and the contribution of traditional rural and tribal communities in the country’s
agro-biodiversity by making provision for benefit sharing and compensation and also
protecting the traditional rights of farmers8.

VISIBLE ADVANTAGES OF THE ACT:

Some of the advantages envisioned under the plant varieties protection system in India are
detailed below:
(a) By assuring a reasonable rate of return on a new plant variety when it finally reaches
the market place, a system of plant breeders right encourages better and mission
oriented research for development of varieties that are fully suited to a given agro-
climatic regions

6 G.B Reddy,Intellectual Property Rights and the Law,(Gogia Law Pub. House, Edn. 11th ) Reprint 2022.
7 TRIP, art.14.
8 Verma S.K : Access to Biological and Genetic Resources and their Protection, 43 JILI (2001).
 (b) India has developed commendable strength in agricultural research. Indian breeders,
working mainly in the public research system, have developed a large number of new
varieties. In the absence of plant breeders’ rights, these varieties would be freely
available to others for exploitation. New varieties developed on the basis of these
varieties could get protected in other countries without any benefit accruing to Indian
institutions, organisations, whereas the availability of varieties developed in countries
which provide for plant breeders rights would be restricted in India. Therefore, putting
a system of plant breeders rights in action through law in India would provide protection
to the public research system varieties developed by them. In future researches access
to foreign germ plasm may get linked to the provision of plant breeders’ right.

(c) In the absence of plant breeders’ right, foreign companies would be hesitant to organise
buy-back production of seeds in India for export to their countries for fear of
unauthorized use of their genetic material.

OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT:

The Act seeks to achieve following objectives:

(a) To stimulate investments for research and development both in the public and the
private sectors for the development of new availability of high quality seeds and
planting material to Indian farmers; and

(b) To facilitate the growth of the seed industry in the country through domestic and foreign
investment which will ensure the availability of high quality seeds and planting material
;and

(c) To recognize the role of farmers as cultivators and conservers and the contribution of
traditional rural and tribal communities to the country’s agro-biodiversity by rewarding
them for their contribution through benefit sharing and protecting the traditional rights
of the farmers.
OTHER SIGNIFICANT FEATURES OF THE ACT:

a. While providing for an effective system of protection of plant breeders rights, the
proposed legislation seeks to safeguard farmers and researchers’ rights. It also contains
provisions for safeguarding the larger public interest.

The farmers’ rights include his traditional rights to save, use, share or sell his farm
produce of a variety protected under this Act provided the sale is not for the purpose of
reproduction under a commercial marketing arrangement.

b. The proposed legislation contains provisions to facilitate equitable sharing of benefits

arising out of the use of plant genetic resources, that may accrue to a breeder from the
sale, disposal etc. of seeds planting material of a protected variety. The village and
farming community will be compensated in case their traditional or local variety is used
for the development of new varieties.

c. A National Gene Fund will be established to promote the conservation and sustainable
use of genetic resources of agro-biodiversity.

d. The proposed legislation will extend to all categories of plants but will not include
micro-organisms. In order to be eligible for protection, a variety must be distinct,
uniform and stable. The period of protection shall be 18years for trees and vines and 15
years for other plants. Breeders’ right envisage that the breeders’ authorisation will be
required for the production and commercial sale of the productive or propagating
material of a protected variety 9.

e. The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority will be established
with the necessary powers to perform all functions relating to the protection of plant
varieties. The duties and functions of the Authority inter alia shall include
i. To promote and develop new varieties of plants and to protect rights of the
farmers and breeders;
ii. To register extant and new plant varieties;

9 Chadha & Chadha IP, Plant Variety Protection, www.mondaq.com/india/x519652/patent/plant+variety+protection ,(Last visited 30,Aug 2016).
 iii. To develop characterisation and documentation of varieties;
iv. To provide the compulsory licensing of protected varieties if the right holder
does not arrange for production and sale of the seeds to ensure that protected
seeds are available to the farmers;
v. To collect statistics with regard to plant varieties seeds and germ plasm for
compilation and publication.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT:

Establishment of Authority (Section 3).

a) The Central Government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, establish

an authority to be known as the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’
Rights Authority for the purposes of this Act.

b) The Authority shall be a body corporate by the name aforesaid ,having perpetual
succession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of
properties , both movable and immoveable to contract and shall by the said
name sue and be sued.
c) The Head Office of the Authority shall be at such place as the Central
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify and the
Authority may, with the previous approval of the Central Government establish
branch offices at other places in India.
d) The Authority shall consist of a Chairperson and fifteen members.

General function of Authority:

a) It shall be the duty of the Authority to promote, by such measures as it thinks fit, the
encouragement for the development of new varieties of plants and to protect the rights
of the farmers and breeders.
b) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions , the
measures referred to sub-section (1) may provide for-
 i. The registration of extant varieties subject to such terms and conditions and in
the matter as may be prescribed;.
ii. Developing characterisation and documentation of varieties registered under
this Act;
iii. Documentation, indexing and cataloguing of farmers’ varieties;
iv. Compulsory cataloguing facilities for all varieties of plants;
v. Ensuring that seeds of the varieties registered under this Act are available to the
farmers and providing for compulsory licensing of such varieties of the breeder
of such varieties or any other person entitled to produce such variety under this
Act does not arrange for production and sale of the seed in the manner as may
be prescribed10
vi. Collecting statistics with regard to plant varieties, including the contribution of
any person at any time in the evolution or development of any plant variety in
India or in any other country for compilation and publication;
vii. Ensuring the maintenance of the Register.

Application for Registration (Section 14).

Any person specified in Section 16 may make an application to the Registrar for registration
of any variety.

i. of such general and species as specified under sub-section (2) of Section 29; or
ii. which is an extant variety; or
iii. which is farmers variety.

Registrable Varieties:

i. A new variety shall be registered under this Act if it conforms to the criteria of novelty,
distinctiveness, uniformity and stability.
ii. Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) any extant variety shall be
registered under this Act within a specified period if it confirms to such criteria of
distinctiveness, uniformity and stability as shall be specified under the regulations.

10 Pratibha Brami , SanjeevSaxena and B.S. Dhillon- The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act in India—(Current Science, Vol. 86, No.3),Feb. 2004.
 iii. For the purpose of sub-sections (1) and (2) as the case may be, a new variety shall be
deemed to be novel, if, at the date of filing of the application for registration for
protection, the propagating or harvested material of such variety has not been sold
ootherwise disposed of by or with the consent of its breeder or his successor for the
proposes of exploitation of such variety.
a. In India, earlier than one year; or
b. Outside India, in the case of trees or vines, earlier than six years or in any other
case, earlier than four years, before the date of filing such application

Person who may make Application (Section 16):

An application for registration under Section 14 shall be made by-

i. any person claiming to be breeder of the variety; or

ii. any successor of the breeder of the variety; or
iii. any person being the assignee of the breeder of the variety in respect of the right
to make such application; or
iv. any farmer or group of farmers or community of farmers claiming to be the
breeder of the variety; or
v. any person authorised in the prescribed manner by a person specified under
clauses (a) to (d) to make application on his behalf; or
vi. any university or publicly funded agricultural institution claiming to be the
breeder of the variety.
An application under sub-section (1) may be made by any of the persons referred to therein
individually or jointly with any other person.

Duration and Effect of Registration and Benefit Sharing (Section 24):

i. When an application for registration of a variety (other than an essentially derived

variety) has been accepted and either-

a) the application has not been opposed and the time of notice of opposition has
expired; or
 b) the application has not been opposed and the opposition has been rejected, the
Registrar shall register the variety.
ii. On the registration of the variety (other than an essentially derived variety), the
Registrar shall issue to the applicant a certificate of registration in the prescribed form
and sealed with the seal of the Registry and send a copy thereof to the Authority for
determination of benefit sharing and to such other authority, as may be prescribed,for
information. The maximum time required by the Registrar for issuing the certificate of
registration from the date of filing of the application for registration of a variety shall
be such as may be prescribed.
iii. Where registration of a variety (other than an essentially derived variety), is not
completed within 12 months from the date of the application by reason of default on
the part of the applicant , the Registrar may, after giving notice to the applicant in the
prescribed manner, treat the application as abandoned unless it is completed within the
time specified in that behalf in the notice.
iv. The Registrar may amend the Register or a certificate of registration for the purpose of
correcting a clerical error or an obvious mistake.
v. The Registrar shall have power to issue such directions to protect the interests of a
breeder against any abusive act committed by any third party during the period between
filing of application for registration and decision taken by the Authority on such
application.
vi. The certificate of registration issued under this section of sub-section (8) of Section 23
shall be valid for 9 years in the case of trees and vines and 6 years in the case of other
crops and may be reviewed and renewed for the remaining period on payment of such
fees as may be fixed by the rules made in this behalf subject to the condition that the
total period of validity shall not exceed-
a. in the case of trees and vines, 18 years from the date of registration of the
variety;
b. in the case of extant variety, 15 years from the date of the notification of that
variety by the Central Government under Section 5 of the Seeds Act, 1966;and
c. in other cases, fifteen years from the date of registration of the variety.

Rights conferred by Registration (Section 28)

 i. Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a certificate of registration for a variety
issued under this Act shall confer an exclusive right on the breeder or his successor, his
agent or licensee, to produce, sell , market, distribute, import or export the variety:
Provided that in the case of an extant variety, unless a breeder or his successor
establishes his right, the Central Government and in case where such extant variety is
notified for a State or for any area thereof under Section 5 of the Seeds Act, 1966, the
State Government, shall be deemed to be the owner of such right.
ii. A breeder may authorise any person to produce, sell, market or otherwise deal with the
variety registered under this Act subject to such limitation and conditions as may be
specified by regulations.
iii. Every authorisation under this Section shall be in such form as may be specified by
regulations.
iv. Where an agent or a licensee referred to in sub-section (1) becomes entitled to produce,
sell, market, distribute, import or export a variety, he shall apply in the prescribed fees
to the Registrar to register his title and the Registrar shall, on receipt of application and
on proof of title to his satisfaction, register him as an agent or a licensee, as the case
may be, in respect of the variety for which he is entitled for such right, and shall cause
particulars of such entitlement and conditions or restrictions, if any, subject to which
such entitlement is made to be entered in the Register.

Framers’ Rights (Section 39):

The farmers’ rights as defined in the Act are:

(i) a farmer who has bred or developed a new variety shall be entitled for registration
and other protection in like manner as a breeder of a variety under this Act;
(ii) the farmers’ variety shall be entitled for registration if the application contains
declaration as specified in clause (h) or sub-section (1) of section 18;
(iii) a farmer who is engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild
relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation shall be
entitled in the prescribed manner for recognition and reward
from the Gene Fund.
Provided that material so selected and preserved has been used as donors of genes in varieties
registrable under 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.

MONSANTO v. INDIAN FARMERS

Right to seed is the basic right of farmers, but due to unethical and circumstances tactics of
seed giant Monsanto, farmers are being trapped in debt and being driven to suicide. The seed
is too costly, the seed available is also unreliable. Monsanto’s royalties are violating the
affordability criteria and are responsible for farmer’s debt, distress and suicide. In the less than
two decades, cotton seed has been snatched from the hands of Indian farmers by Monsanto
displacing local varieties, introducing GMO Bt cotton seeds and coercing extravagant royalties
from farmers. Since Monsanto’s entry into Indian in 1998, the price of Cotton seeds has
increased by almost 80,00,00% (from Rs. 5 — Rs. 9/kg to Rs. 1600 for 450 gms). The issue of
IPRs, patent, royalty, technology fee in the context of false claims of better yield, failed
technology is under the active consideration of the Central Commission of India. On 8th March,
2016, the Central Government issued a seed price control order slashing Monsanto’s royalty
on Bt. Cotton seed by 74% Monsanto approached Delhi High Court and Karnataka High Court
to challenge the order. Both the High Courts refused to quash the seed price control order 11.

In Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Co and Anr v. Union of India and Anr [(2015) 217 DLT 175], the
petitioners impugned Registrar, PPVFR Authority’s order which held that parent lines of
known hybrid varieties cannot be registered as ‘new’ plant varieties under the PPVFRA. It was
held that if the hybrid falls under the category of ‘extant variety’ about which there is common
knowledge, then its parental lines cannot be treated as novel.

There were several issues regarding certain provisions in the Act which the Delhi HC clarified,
the first one being that a hybrid seed does not fall within the definition of ‘propagating material’
as it is incapable of regenerating any of the parent line varieties. While the Act does not define
“harvested material”, “propagating material” has been defined under Section 2(r) of the Act
defining it as a plant or a seed that is capable of regenerating.[i] Furthermore, the court held

11 Dr. Vandana Shiva— Mosanto v. Indian Farmers— http:// vandanashiva.com.

that the sale of hybrid varieties does not comply with Section 15(3)[ii] of the Act, in case of
those varieties that may germinate into either parent plants, amounting to the exploitation of
such plants. Going by the petitioner’s interpretation of the Act, they would gain exclusive rights
over the hybrid and the parent seeds for a maximum of 45/54 years, which is significantly more
than the period 15/18-year period provided in the Act.

The High Court used the mischief rule to decide against the petitioners even though the
language of Section 15(3) is ambiguous. The court did so because it is well established that
when there is ambiguity in the language of a statute, a purposive interpretation that furthers the
intent of the Legislature must be adopted. The Legislative intent of the PPVFRA is to safeguard
farmer’s and plant breeders’ rights. Moreover, the Administrative and Legal Committee of
UPOV as per Article 6(1) of the 1991 Act of the UPOV Convention, had held in a similar
dispute that the novelty of the parent lines is lost by commercial exploitation of its hybrid, and
therefore such interpretations are not viable. India was obliged to protect the intellectual
property rights of certain plant varieties since it had ratified the TRIPS agreement.

Constitution of Gene Fund (Section 45)

The Central Government shall constitute a Fund to be called the National Gene Fund and there
shall be credited thereto—

i. the benefit sharing received in the prescribed manner from the breeder of a variety or
an essentially derived variety registered under this Act, or propagating material of such
variety or essentially derived variety, as the case may be;
ii. the annual fee payable to the Authority by way of royalty under sub-section (1) of
section 35;
iii. the compensation deposited in the Gene Fund under sub-section (4) of Section 41;
iv. the contribution from any national and international organisations and other sources

The Gene Fund shall, in the prescribed manner, be applied for meeting-

i. any amount to be paid by way of benefit sharing under sub-section (5) of Section 26;
ii. the compensation payable under sub-section (3) of Section 41;
 iii. the expenditure for supporting the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources
including in-situ and ex-situ collections and for strengthening the capability of the
Panchayat in carrying out such conservation and sustainable use;
iv. the expenditure of the schemes relating to benefit sharing framed under Section 46.

Infringement (Section 64)

Subject to the provisions of the Act, a right established under this Act is infringed by a person—
i. who, not being the breeder of a variety registered under this Act, or a registered agent
or a registered licence of that variety, sells, exports, imports or produces such variety
without the permission of its breeder of within the scope of a registered licensee of
registered agency without permission of the registered licensee or registered agent, as
the case may be;
ii. who uses, sells, exports, imports or produces any other variety giving such variety, the
denomination of a variety registered under this Act in such manner as to cause
confusion in the mind of general people in identifying such variety so registered.

Suit for Infringement (Section 65).

No suit-
i. for the infringement of variety registered under this Act;or
ii. relating to any right in a variety registered under this Act,
shall be instituted in any Court inferior to a District Court having jurisdiction to try the suit.

Relief of Suit for Infringement

i. The relief which a Court may grant in any suit for Infringement referred to in Section
65 includes an injunction and at the option of the plaintiff, either damages or a share of
the profits.
ii. The order of injunction under sub-section (1) may include an ex parte injunction or any
interlocutors order for any of the following matters namely:
a. discovery of documents;
b. preserving of infringing variety or documents or other evidence which are
related to the subject-matter of the suit;
 c. attachment of such property of the defendant which the Court deems necessary
to recover damages, costs or other pecuniary remedies which may be finally
awarded to the plaintiff.

Besides above mentioned provisions, provisions have also been made with regard to following
subject:-
i. Grant of compulsory licence (Sections 47 to 53).
ii. Composition, powers and functions of Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal
(Sections 54 to 59).
iii. Offence and Penalties (Sections 68 to 77).
Section 78 provides that the Authority or Registrar shall not disclose any information relating
to the registration of a variety or any application relating to the registration of a variety under
this Act which it considers prejudicial to the interest of India.

Section 89 states no civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the
authority of the Registrar or the tribunal is empowered by or under this Act to determine.
Central Government has the power to remove difficulties in the implementation of the Act and
frame rules to carry out the provisions of the Act.

Compulsory Licensing:

The legislation authorizes the granting of compulsory licenses to ensure availability of seed
plant or reproductive material of the protected variety in reasonable quantity at reasonable price
if12:
a. three years have elapsed since the date of issue of a certificate of registration,
b. reasonable requirements of the public for seeds or other propagating material of the
variety have not been satisfied, and
c. The seed or other propagating material of the variety is not available to the public at a
reasonable price.

If these conditions exist, the Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers’ Rights Authority can
intervene. If, after giving an opportunity to the breeder of such a variety to file an opposition

12 The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights Act, 2001,s.47.

and, after hearing the parties, the Authority may, on grounds (b) and (c), order the breeder to
license anyone interested in undertaking production, distribution and sale of the seed or other
propagating material of the variety

PROJECTION OF SECURITY OF INDIA:

Under Section 78 of the Act the security aspect of India has been provided. It obligates the
Authority and the Registrar, (i) not to disclose any information relating to the registration of a
variety or any application relating to the registration of a variety, which they consider
prejudicial to the interest of the security of India; and (ii) to take any action regarding
cancellation of registration of such registered varieties which the Central Government may by
notification specify in the interest of security of India.

The Indian law is a novel experiment in ensuring protection to plant varieties and rights of plant
breeders and farmers. The success of this new Act will be measured only when it is effectively
implemented. At this juncture it is necessary to create greater awareness about the law
especially among rural Indian farmers. The fear of adverse impact on farmers’ interest by
multinational seed companies and research organisations in the field of agriculture need to be
addressed with urgency.
CONCLUSION:

The Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, (PVPFR) fulfilled India’s
commitments under Article 27.3(b) of TRIPS to provide protection of plant varieties either by
patents or through an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof. The
legislation contains measures to protect plant varieties developed through public and private
sector research and developed and conserved by farmers and traditional communities. It
provides legal rights to farmers to save, use, share or sell their farm seeds and stimulates plant
breeders and researchers to develop new and improved varieties. The Act ensures that
Farmers’ will be treated like commercial breeders and receive the same kind of protection. It
prescribes the establishment of the Plant Varieties Protection Authority that not only registers
the new varieties developed by breeders and farmers but also ensures fair and equitable benefit
sharing and financial compensation. The plant variety protection system provides breeders with
an incentive to properly maintain their varieties and ensure that authentic propagating material
is available to users. As a consequence, the benefits of plant variety protection go not only to
breeders, but flow on to farmers and to the national economy generally.

SUGGESTIONS:

Awareness needs to be raised among scientists, political decision makers, breeder, framers,
village communities and the private seed industry. The provisions of the law can be widely
disseminated in all research institutes directly or indirectly involved in the development of New
Plant Varieties. Awareness raising and information empowerment in Plant Variety Protection
and Farmers Authority to effectively disseminate reliable information on the rights of plant
breeders and conservers. Permanent committees may be established. Raising awareness and
enhancing information through local press, radio, television, and the internet is essential for
farmers and village communities.
REFERENCES:

Chadha & Chadha IP, Plant Variety Protection, available at:http:/

www.mondaq.com/india/x519652/patent/plant+variety+protection ,(Last visited 30,Aug
2016).
M.K. Bhandari, Law Relating to Intellectual Property Rights,(Central Law Publications, 6th
edn.,2021).
G.B Reddy,Intellectual Property Rights and the Law,(Gogia Law Pub. House, 11th edn.,
Reprint 2022).
Verma S.K : Access to Biological and Genetic Resources and their Protection, 43 JILI
(2001).
Pratibha Brahmi, Sanjeev Saxena &B.S Dhillon,The Protection of Plant Varieties and
Framers’ Rights Act of India, (Current Science, Vol.86, NO.3),10 Feb. 2004