UNIT 3

Question: Discuss the requisites for registration of varieties under the

Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001.
1. Definition and Eligibility of “Variety”
Under Section 2(zg), a “variety” means a plant grouping within a single
botanical taxon of the lowest known rank, defined by its expression of
characteristics resulting from a given genotype or combination of
genotypes, distinguishable by one or more characteristics and considered
as a unit with regard to its suitability for being propagated unchanged.
Both new varieties and extant (including farmers’ and essentially
derived) varieties are eligible for registration.
2. Applicant and Authority
a. Applicant (§ 14):
– Breeders (including breeders’ organizations), farmers, or institutions
may apply.
– In case of joint development, all co-owners must join the application or
nominate a lead applicant.
b. Competent Authority (§ 3):
– The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority
(PPV&FR Authority) receives and processes applications.
3. Conditions for Protection (DUS and Novelty)
a. Novelty (§ 15):
– The variety must not have been sold or released to the public anywhere
in India or abroad more than one year before the date of filing (for
extant varieties, must not have been sold more than one year in India
prior to notification of the Act).
b. Distinctness, Uniformity, Stability (DUS) (§ 15):
– Distinctness: Clearly distinguishable from any other known variety at
the time of filing, based on one or more essential characteristics.
– Uniformity: Sufficiently uniform in those characteristics, subject to an
acceptable degree of variation.
– Stability: Remains unchanged after repeated propagation or, in the
case of a particular cycle of propagation, at the end of each cycle.
4. Application Requirements (§ 16 and Rules)
An application must be in the prescribed form and include:
a. A description of the variety, highlighting the DUS features;
b. Proposed denomination (Section 37) that is distinctive, not misleading,
and compliant with naming guidelines;
c. Evidence of breeder’s right or farmers’ right entitlement;
d. Source or derivation of the variety, with details of parentage;
e. Proof of payment of the prescribed application fee;
f. Declaration of any previous applications filed in other countries; and
g. Submission of seed or plant material samples for testing.
5. Examination and Testing (§ 18–19)
a. Formality Examination (§ 18): Authority checks completeness,
suitability of denomination, and eligibility of applicant.
b. DUS Testing (§ 19):
– Conducted by any of the designated Test Guidelines Committees or
entrusted institutions following the PPV&FR (DUS Test) Regulations,
2006.
– Requires growing trials to verify distinctness, uniformity, and stability
over two or more crop seasons.
6. Opposition and Revocation (§ 28–31)
a. Opposition (§ 28–29): Any person may file a notice of opposition
within six months of publication of the application, on grounds of non-
compliance with DUS, novelty, or violation of farmers’ rights.
b. Revocation (§ 30–31): Registered rights can be revoked if, inter alia,
the variety ceases to be distinct, uniform, or stable, or if the registration
was obtained by false information.
7. Case Law Illustration
While Indian jurisprudence on PPV&FR is still evolving, in National Seed
Association of India v. UoI (2011) the Delhi High Court upheld the
Authority’s power to frame DUS testing guidelines, emphasizing that
rigorous DUS protocols are essential to prevent frivolous registrations
(Facts: challenge to PPV&FR (DUS Test) Regulations; Held: Regulations
valid and within Authority’s remit).
 8. Conclusion
Registration of a plant variety under the PPV&FR Act, 2001 requires that
the candidate variety qualify as novel, distinct, uniform, and stable; be
filed by an eligible applicant in the prescribed form with detailed
descriptions and material; undergo formal and DUS testing; and survive
the window for opposition. The statutory regime balances breeders’ and
farmers’ rights by providing clear procedural safeguards and post-
registration remedies.
END
Question: Discuss the policy and objectives of the Protection of Plant Varieties
and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001.
1. Policy Background
a. International Commitments: In the wake of the Agreement on Trade-
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, 1994), India was
obliged to provide “effective sui generis” protection for plant varieties (§
27.3(b) of TRIPS). The PPV&FR Act, 2001 implements this by balancing
breeders’ rights with farmers’ and community interests.
b. National Priorities: India’s agrarian economy, reliance on small-holder
farmers and rich agrobiodiversity called for a system that protected
innovation in plant breeding while safeguarding farmers’ traditional
practices, germplasm exchange and seed sovereignty.
2. Statutory Objectives (Preamble)
The Preamble to the Act expressly declares its aims to:
– Promote the development of new plant varieties;
– Protect the rights of farmers, plant breeders and researchers;
– Facilitate the growth of the seed industry; and
– Conserves and enhances genetic diversity of seeds and plants.
3. Detailed Objectives
a. Encouragement of Innovation (§ 4):
– Stimulate research and breeding of improved, high-yielding, stress-
tolerant and disease-resistant varieties by granting statutory rights to
breeders for a defined period.
b. Farmers’ Rights (§ 12):
 – Recognize the contributions of farmers in conserving, improving and
making available plant genetic resources by:
• Allowing any farmer to save, use, sow, re-sow, exchange, share or sell
farm-produce of a protected variety (subject to extant variety
conditions).
• Providing breeders’ remuneration to farmers/community where their
varieties form the basis of a registered variety.
• Compensating farmers for being denied the use of varieties
traditionally cultivated by them when those varieties are newly
commercialized by right-holders.
c. Benefit-Sharing (§ 25):
– Ensure equitable sharing of monetary and non-monetary benefits from
the commercial use of notified extant varieties, landraces and traditional
cultivars.
d. Conservation of Genetic Resources (§ 5):
– Mandate the Registrar to maintain a National Register of Plant
Varieties, documenting new and extant varieties to prevent loss of
agrobiodiversity.
4. Supporting Mechanisms
a. PPV&FR Authority (§ 3):
– An independent statutory body to adjudicate applications, grants,
oppositions, benefit-sharing disputes and farmers’ rights claims.
b. National Gene Fund (§ 34):
– A corpus to collect benefit-sharing contributions and channel them into
research, conservation, payment of farmers’ compensation and
awareness programs.
c. Compulsory Licensing (§ 39):
– Safeguard public interest by empowering the Authority to grant
compulsory licenses on reasonable terms if a protected variety is not
made available at a reasonable price or on reasonable terms.
5. Case Law Illustration
In National Seed Association of India v. Union of India (2011), the Delhi
High Court upheld the PPV&FR Authority’s power to frame Distinctness–
Uniformity–Stability (DUS) testing guidelines, observing that rigorous
 testing standards are intrinsic to the Act’s policy of granting robust and
reliable rights to breeders while protecting the interests of farmers and
society at large (Facts: Challenge to DUS Test Regulations; Held:
Regulations valid and in furtherance of statutory objectives).
6. Conclusion
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 crafts a
sui generis regime that synergizes encouragement of scientific
innovation with recognition and reward for farmers’ traditional
knowledge and custodianship of agrobiodiversity. By embedding
objectives of varietal development, farmers’ rights, benefit-sharing and
genetic conservation within its policy framework, the Act seeks a
balanced, equitable and sustainable seed sector suited to India’s social
and economic realities.
END
Question: Explain the concept and statutory provisions of Farmers’ Rights under
the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001.
1. Definition and Rationale
Farmers’ Rights are the entitlements granted by the PPV&FR Act to
recognize and reward the contributions of Indian farmers in conserving,
improving and making available plant genetic resources. These rights
balance breeders’ monopolies with farmers’ traditional practices, seed
sovereignty and agrobiodiversity stewardship.
2. Statutory Basis (§ 12)
Section 12 of the Act expressly vests the following rights in farmers:
a. Seed Saving and Use: Any farmer may save, use, sow, re-sow,
exchange, share or sell farm-produce of a protected variety in the same
manner as before the grant of protection, subject only to the condition
that the farmer does not sell branded seed of a protected variety.
b. Recognition and Reward: A farmer who has bred or developed a
notified extant variety or contributed to its improvement is eligible for
recognition and monetary reward as recommended by the Protection of
Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority (“the Authority”).
c. Remuneration for Use of Farmer’s Variety: If a breeder’s protected
variety is essentially derived from a farmer’s variety or uses farmers’
 traditional germplasm, the farmer is entitled to an equitable share of
benefit (royalty or lump-sum) as determined by the Authority.
d. Compensation for Denial of Seed Use: If a farmer is denied the use of
a variety traditionally cultivated by her because the variety has been
newly commercialized by a right-holder, she is entitled to compensation
from the breeder.
3. Mechanism for Enforcement
a. Application to Authority: Farmers submit claims for recognition,
reward or compensation to the Authority in prescribed form, along with
supporting evidence of cultivation, development or traditional use.
b. National Gene Fund (§ 34): Monetary awards and benefit-sharing
contributions directed to farmers are drawn from the National Gene
Fund, ensuring funds for research, reward disbursement and
agrobiodiversity conservation.
c. Dispute Resolution: The Authority adjudicates disputes over
entitlement, quantum of remuneration or compensation, and its
decisions are appealable to the Plant Varieties Tribunal.
4. Illustrative Case Law
National Seed Association of India v. Union of India (2011)
o Facts: The Delhi High Court was petitioned by seed industry bodies
challenging the Authority’s DUS Test Regulations, arguing they
unduly favored small farmers and extant varieties.
o Held: The Court upheld the Regulations, observing that rigorous
testing and recognition of farmers’ contributions are integral to
the Act’s policy of equitable innovation protection and
agrobiodiversity conservation.
(Note: Specific judicial pronouncements on Section 12 claims remain sparse,
highlighting an emerging area for jurisprudential development.)
5. Impact and Challenges
– Empowerment of Smallholders: By safeguarding seed-saving and
granting rewards, the Act reinforces farmers’ autonomy and livelihoods.
– Documentation Needs: Effective exercise of rights depends on robust
evidence—variety history, cultivation records and local registers—posing
 a challenge for resource-poor communities.
– Awareness and Accessibility: Low awareness of the claims process and
limited capacity of the Authority can impede farmers from asserting their
rights.
6. Conclusion
Farmers’ Rights under the PPV&FR Act, 2001 constitute a pioneering sui
generis mechanism that enshrines seed sovereignty, recognizes
traditional innovation and ensures equitable benefit-sharing. While the
statutory framework is comprehensive, its success hinges on
strengthening institutional outreach, simplifying claim procedures and
fostering documentation at the community level to translate legal
entitlements into tangible gains for India’s farmers.
END
Question: Discuss the rights of farmers and plant breeders granted under the
Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001.
1. Farmers’ Rights (§ 12)
a. Seed Saving and Use: Any farmer may save, use, sow, re-sow,
exchange, share or sell farm-produce of a protected variety in the same
manner as before grant of protection, provided she does not sell branded
seed of that variety.
b. Recognition and Reward: A farmer who has bred or developed, or
contributed to the improvement of, a notified extant variety is entitled to
recognition and a monetary reward, as determined by the Authority.
c. Benefit-Sharing for Derivative Varieties: If a protected variety is
essentially derived from a farmer’s variety or uses his traditional
germplasm, the farmer is entitled to an equitable share of benefits
(royalty or lump-sum) from the breeder (§ 12(2)(c)).
d. Compensation for Denial of Seed Use: Should a farmer be denied the
use of a traditionally cultivated variety because it has been newly
commercialized by a rights-holder, she may claim compensation from the
breeder (§ 12(2)(d)).
2. Breeders’ Rights (Part III, §§ 14–27)
a. Eligibility (§ 14): Breeders (including their successors) of new, extant,
 farmers’ or essentially derived varieties may apply for registration and
protection.
b. Exclusive Rights (§ 15): On registration, a breeder acquires the sole
right—subject to farmers’ seed-saving rights and research exemptions—
to:
o Produce, sell, market, distribute, import or export the variety;
o Use the variety in further breeding and research (the “research
exemption”);
o License or assign these rights to others.
c. Duration of Protection (§ 27):
o Field crops: 18 years from the date of grant
o Trees, vines, ornamentals: 15 years from the date of grant
d. Compulsory Licences (§ 39): If a protected variety is not
available at a reasonable price or on reasonable terms, the
Authority may grant a compulsory licence to other applicants after
3 years of grant, subject to fair remuneration to the breeder.
3. Joint Rights and Transferability
a. Co-applicants: In cases of joint breeding efforts, co-owners may apply
jointly, or nominate one among them as lead applicant (§ 14).
b. Assignment and Licensing: Breeders may transfer or license their
rights—fully or partially—by executing a written agreement, which must
be registered with the Authority (§ 30).
4. Limitations and Exceptions
a. Farmers’ Exemptions: The farmer’s privilege to save and use seed is
absolute for his own needs, but he may not sell branded seed of a
protected variety.
b. Research Exemption: Any act done for bona fide research, breeding or
experimental purposes does not infringe the breeder’s rights.
5. Case Law Illustration
National Seed Association of India v. Union of India (2011)
 o Facts: Industry petitioners challenged the PPV&FR Authority’s
Distinctness–Uniformity–Stability (DUS) regulations, arguing they
unduly restricted breeders and favoured farmers’ varieties.
o Held: The Delhi High Court upheld the regulations, observing that
robust DUS standards and clear delineation of farmers’ and
breeders’ rights are essential to the Act’s equilibrium between
innovation and traditional stewardship (reaffirming both seed-
saving privileges and breeders’ exclusivity).
Conclusion
The PPV&FR Act, 2001 establishes a balanced sui generis regime: farmers
retain customary rights to save, use and share seeds—along with avenues for
recognition, reward and compensation—while breeders gain time-bound,
exclusive commercial and licensing rights, subject to research and farmers’
exemptions. Together, these provisions foster innovation in plant breeding,
safeguard agrobiodiversity and uphold the rights of traditional custodians.
END
Question: Explain the procedure for registration of plant varieties under the
Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001.
1. Filing of Application
An applicant—being a breeder, farmer or institution—must submit a
complete application in the prescribed form to the Protection of Plant
Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority (PPV&FR Authority) under
Section 16. The application includes the botanical name of the variety, a
proposed denomination, a detailed description highlighting its
Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability (DUS) characteristics, source or
parentage, and declaration of any prior filings abroad. Samples of seed
or planting material sufficient for DUS testing must accompany the
application, along with payment of the requisite fees prescribed by the
Authority.
2. Formality Examination
Upon receipt, the Authority conducts a formality examination under
Section 18 to verify that the application is complete, the proposed variety
denomination is not identical or deceptively similar to existing names,
 and the applicant is eligible for protection. If deficiencies are found—for
example, missing descriptions or incorrect fees—the Authority issues a
notice requiring the applicant to rectify within a specified period. Failure
to comply leads to application rejection.
3. Publication and Opposition
Once the formality check is cleared, the Authority publishes the
application in the Official Gazette and on its website, inviting any person
to file a notice of opposition within six months on grounds of lack of
novelty, non-DUS compliance, or farmers’ rights violations (Section 28).
The applicant may file counter-statements, and both parties submit
evidence. The Authority may refer the matter to its Technical Expert
Committee for adjudication.
4. DUS Testing
Independently or on the recommendation of its Test Guidelines
Committee, the Authority entrusts designated institutions to conduct
DUS trials under Section 19. These trials—typically over two crop seasons
—assess whether the variety is distinct from known varieties, sufficiently
uniform across plants, and stable in successive propagations. A detailed
trial report is submitted to the Authority for evaluation.
5. Technical Evaluation and Decision
The Authority reviews the DUS trial report, opposition outcomes and any
further evidence. If satisfied that the variety meets the statutory criteria
of novelty, distinctness, uniformity and stability, and no valid opposition
remains, it approves registration. In case of adverse findings or
unresolved opposition, the Authority may refuse registration, stating
reasons and informing the applicant of appeal rights.
6. Grant of Certificate and Term of Protection
On approval, the Authority issues a certificate of registration under
Section 23, vesting the breeder with exclusive rights to produce, sell,
market, import and export the protected variety—subject to farmers’
privilege and research exemptions. The certificate specifies the date of
grant and the period of protection: eighteen years for field crops and
fifteen years for trees and vines (Section 27).
 7. Post-Registration Matters
Registered rights may be challenged by a petition for revocation on
grounds such as loss of DUS characteristics or fraud in Section 30. The
Authority may also grant compulsory licenses under Section 39 if the
variety is not available to the public at a reasonable price or on
reasonable terms after three years of grant.
Case Law: In National Seed Association of India v. Union of India (2011), the
Delhi High Court upheld the validity of the Authority’s DUS Test Regulations,
emphasizing that rigorous DUS protocols are intrinsic to a reliable registration
process and prevent frivolous claims (Facts: challenge to DUS regulations; Held:
regulations sustained as within the Authority’s statutory mandate).
Conclusion
The PPV&FR Act, 2001 prescribes a structured, multi-stage procedure—
application, formality examination, publication and opposition, DUS testing,
technical evaluation, and certificate grant—to ensure only genuinely novel,
distinct, uniform and stable varieties receive protection, while safeguarding
farmers’ rights and promoting agrobiodiversity.
END
Question: Write a note on the National Gene Fund under the Biological
Diversity Act, 2002.
1. Legal Foundation (§ 37)
The National Gene Fund—often called the National Biodiversity Fund—is
established by the Central Government under Section 37 of the Biological
Diversity Act, 2002. It is designed to receive and pool all monetary
benefits arising from access to India’s biological resources and traditional
knowledge, as well as grants, donations and other contributions for
biodiversity conservation.
2. Sources of the Fund
a. Benefit-Sharing Receipts (§ 21): Royalties, license fees, milestone
payments and penalties prescribed by the National Biodiversity Authority
(NBA) under ABS agreements flow directly into the Fund.
b. Voluntary Contributions (§ 37[2]): Grants, gifts, donations, bequests
 and other financial contributions from individuals, corporations or
international bodies for conservation purposes.
3. Management and Investment (§ 37[1]–(3))
a. Custodian: The NBA holds and administers the Fund through a
dedicated public-exchequer account.
b. Investment Powers: Moneys in the Fund may be invested in Central
Government securities or schemes as directed by the Central
Government, ensuring capital preservation and reasonable returns.
4. Utilisation of the Fund (§ 37[4]–(5))
a. In-Situ and Ex-Situ Conservation: Projects for habitat restoration,
protected‐area management, seed banks, gene banks and captive
breeding facilities.
b. Capacity Building: Training and support for State Biodiversity Boards,
Biodiversity Management Committees, taxonomists and local
communities in ABS procedures, documentation and sustainable
practices.
c. People’s Biodiversity Registers: Financial assistance for the
preparation and periodic updating of PBRs by local BMCs to document
species, ecosystems and traditional knowledge.
d. Research and Infrastructure: Grants for taxonomic surveys,
biotechnological research, infrastructure such as herbariums and
research stations.
e. Awareness and Outreach: Public education campaigns, workshops
and publications to foster community participation in biodiversity
conservation.
5. Transparency, Oversight and Accountability (§ 38)
a. Annual Reporting: The NBA must include detailed accounts of Fund
receipts, investments and expenditures in its annual report to the Central
Government, which is laid before Parliament.
b. Audit: All moneys in the Fund are subject to audit by the Comptroller
and Auditor General of India.
6. Significance and Impact
The National Gene Fund creates a dedicated, transparent financial
mechanism linking user-pays ABS principles with on-ground conservation
 and community development. By channeling benefit-sharing proceeds
and voluntary contributions into targeted programmes, it ensures that
custodians of biodiversity and traditional knowledge tangibly benefit
from the sustainable use of India’s genetic heritage.
Conclusion
The National Gene Fund under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 is a
cornerstone of India’s ABS regime. Its robust governance, investment
safeguards and earmarked utilisation for conservation, capacity building,
documentation and outreach make it vital for sustaining India’s rich biological
diversity and empowering local stakeholders.
END
Question: Explain the powers and functions of the Protection of Plant Varieties
and Farmers’ Rights Authority under the Protection of Plant Varieties and
Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001.
1. Constitutional and Statutory Foundation (§ 3)
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority (“the
Authority”) is constituted by the Central Government as an independent
statutory body. It comprises a Chairperson and members drawn from
Central Ministries (Agriculture, Environment, Commerce), experts in
plant breeding and genetics, and representatives of farmers’ and
breeders’ organizations.
2. Registration and Grant of Rights (§§ 14–27)
a. Application Receipt and Scrutiny (§ 16–18): The Authority receives
applications for registration of new, extant, essentially derived and
farmers’ varieties, conducts formality examinations, and ensures
compliance with DUS (Distinctness, Uniformity, Stability) and novelty
requirements.
b. DUS Testing Oversight (§ 19): It designates institutions to carry out
field trials, evaluates trial reports, and decides whether a variety meets
statutory criteria.
c. Publication and Opposition Management (§§ 28–29): The Authority
publishes applications, invites oppositions, adjudicates disputes through
its Technical Expert Committee, and makes final determinations on
objections.
 d. Grant of Certificate (§ 23): Upon satisfaction, it issues a certificate of
registration conferring exclusive rights to produce, sell, market, import
and export the variety (subject to farmers’ and research exemptions).
3. Administration of Farmers’ Rights (§ 12, §§ 25–27)
a. Recognition and Reward (§ 12(2)(b)): The Authority evaluates claims
by farmers for breeding or improving extant varieties and awards
recognition and monetary rewards from the National Gene Fund.
b. Benefit-Sharing Determination (§ 25): It prescribes terms (royalties,
lump-sums) for sharing benefits with farmers whose traditional varieties
or germplasm underlie protected varieties.
c. Compensation Award (§ 12(2)(d)): The Authority adjudicates and
awards compensation where farmers’ customary seed-saving rights are
curtailed by commercialization of their traditional varieties.
4. National Gene Fund Management (§ 34)
The Authority administers the National Gene Fund, which pools benefit-
sharing receipts and disburses monies for farmers’ awards, R&D grants,
DUS testing support, training and conservation projects. It sanctions
utilization proposals and ensures transparent accounting.
5. Compulsory Licensing (§ 39)
If a protected variety is not made available at a reasonable price or on
reasonable terms within three years of grant, the Authority may, on
application, issue a compulsory licence to third parties, ensuring access
and preventing monopolistic practices.
6. Enforcement, Revocation and Appeals (§§ 30–31, § 41)
a. Revocation Proceedings (§ 30–31): The Authority may revoke
protection if a variety ceases to meet DUS criteria or if the certificate was
obtained by false information.
b. Grievance Redressal (§ 41): It constitutes the Plant Varieties
Protection Appellate Tribunal to hear appeals against its decisions on
registration, revocation, compulsory licensing, and farmers’ claims.
7. Rule‐Making and Policy Advisory (§ 41)
The Authority frames regulations (e.g., PPV&FR (DUS Test) Regulations,
2006) governing application procedures, testing protocols, farmers’
 rights claims and benefit-sharing mechanisms. It advises the Central
Government on seed policy, agrobiodiversity conservation and
implementation of TRIPS-compliant sui generis protections.
8. Case Law Illustration
In National Seed Association of India v. Union of India (2011), the Delhi
High Court upheld the Authority’s power to frame stringent DUS testing
guidelines, affirming that robust testing standards and clear delineation
of breeders’ and farmers’ rights are intrinsic to the Act’s objectives of
fostering innovation while safeguarding traditional practices (Facts:
challenge to DUS Test Regulations; Held: Regulations valid).
Conclusion
The PPV&FR Authority wields comprehensive powers—from registration and
DUS oversight to farmers’ recognition, benefit-sharing adjudication, fund
administration, compulsory licensing, and appellate functions—to implement
India’s sui generis plant variety protection regime. Its multifaceted role ensures
a balanced framework that promotes plant breeding innovation, conserves
agrobiodiversity, and upholds farmers’ rights.
END

Question: Explain the concept of a sui generis system in the context of

intellectual property protection for biological innovations.
1. Meaning of “Sui Generis”
“Sui generis” is Latin for “of its own kind.” In intellectual property law, a
sui generis system is a tailor-made regime designed to protect a specific
subject matter—such as plant varieties or traditional knowledge—that
does not fit neatly into existing categories like patents or copyrights.
2. TRIPS Mandate (§ 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement)
Article 27.3(b) of the WTO’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of
Intellectual Property Rights requires Members to provide protection for
plant varieties either by patents, an effective sui generis system, or a
combination of both, recognising that plant genetic innovations warrant
specialised treatment beyond standard patent norms.
3. Rationale for a Sui Generis Approach
a. Agrobiodiversity Complexity: Plant breeding often builds on farmers’
selections of landraces and traditional germplasm, necessitating a
regime that balances commercial incentives with farmers’ seed-saving
and exchange practices.
b. Traditional Knowledge: Indigenous knowledge related to plants and
medicines is communal, orally transmitted, and not readily documented
—unsuitable for strict patent criteria like novelty and written disclosure.
c. Flexibility: Sui generis laws can embed exceptions (e.g., farmers’
privileges, research exemptions) and benefit-sharing mechanisms
tailored to national socio-economic conditions.
4. India’s Sui Generis System: PPV&FR Act, 2001
a. Integrated Rights Regime: Combines plant breeders’ exclusive rights
(§§ 14–27) with robust farmers’ rights (§ 12), including seed-saving,
recognition, reward, and compensation for traditional varieties.
b. Benefit-Sharing & National Gene Fund: Mandates equitable sharing
of benefits from commercial use of extant varieties (§ 25) and channels
funds through the National Gene Fund (§ 34).
c. Compulsory Licensing (§ 39): Ensures public access by allowing
licences if a protected variety is not reasonably available.
d. Decentralised Governance: Establishes the PPV&FR Authority (§ 3),
Plant Varieties Tribunal (§ 41), and engages local communities via BMCs
for documentation and enforcement.
5. Comparison with UPOV Conventions
– The UPOV 1991 Convention is often viewed as more breeder-centric,
with narrower farmers’ exemptions. India’s Act, by contrast, provides
broader farmers’ privileges and benefit-sharing obligations, reflecting its
agrarian priorities.
6. Case Law Illustration
National Seed Association of India v. Union of India (2011): The Delhi
High Court upheld the PPV&FR Authority’s power to frame rigorous DUS
testing regulations, affirming that a specialised sui generis regime can
legitimately define novelty and stability standards suited to plant
 varieties (Facts: challenge to DUS Test Regulations; Held: regulations
valid).
7. Advantages and Challenges
– Advantages: Customisation to national needs; protection of traditional
practices; promotion of agrobiodiversity; social equity through benefit-
sharing.
– Challenges: Administrative complexity; capacity to conduct DUS
testing; ensuring awareness among smallholders; harmonisation with
international trade obligations.
Conclusion
A sui generis system recognises that certain forms of biological innovation—
especially plant varieties and traditional knowledge—require bespoke legal
frameworks. India’s PPV&FR Act, 2001 exemplifies such a system, balancing
breeders’ incentives with farmers’ rights and community benefit-sharing,
thereby fulfilling both domestic priorities and TRIPS obligations.
END
Question: Explain the remedies against infringement of plant variety rights and
farmers’ rights under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act,
2001.
1. Civil Remedies
a. Injunctions: The right-holder (breeder or farmer entitled under Section
12) may seek interim and perpetual injunctions in a civil court to restrain
infringing acts—such as unauthorized production, sale, or marketing of a
protected variety.
b. Damages or Account of Profits: The aggrieved party can claim
damages for loss suffered or an account of profits earned by the
infringer. Courts routinely award either compensation equivalent to the
royalty the infringer would have paid, or disgorgement of illicit profits.
c. Delivery Up and Destruction: Infringing propagating material and any
packaging bearing the protected variety’s denomination can be ordered
delivered up for destruction or disposal in such manner as the court
deems fit.
2. Administrative Remedies through the Authority
a. Revocation Proceedings (§ 30–31): Any person can petition the
PPV&FR Authority to revoke a certificate of registration on grounds that
the variety ceases to be distinct, uniform or stable, or that the certificate
was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. Revocation nullifies the
right and curtails future enforcement.
b. Compulsory Licensing (§ 39): If a protected variety is not made
available to the public at a reasonable price or on reasonable terms, any
person may apply to the Authority after three years of grant for a
compulsory licence. Grant of such a licence permits third-party
production subject to payment of fair remuneration to the right-holder.
3. Criminal Remedies
a. Offences by Persons (§ 58): Knowingly infringing—by producing,
selling, storing or importing a protected variety without authorization—
constitutes a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment up to two
years, or a fine not less than fifty thousand rupees, or both.
b. Corporate and Official Liability (§ 59–60): Officers of corporate
infringers and public officials aiding infringement are individually
punishable with the same penalties, ensuring personal accountability for
unauthorized acts.
4. Appellate and Enforcement Mechanisms
a. Appellate Tribunal (§ 41): Parties aggrieved by Authority orders—on
registration, revocation or compulsory licensing—may appeal to the
Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal within sixty days. The
Tribunal’s decisions can further be challenged by special leave petition
before the Supreme Court.
b. Police and Enforcement: Criminal complaints may be filed before
Magistrate courts; the Act empowers courts to summon and examine
parties, seize infringing material, and conduct speedy trials under its
special provisions.
5. Illustrative Case Law
In Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. (2014), the Supreme
Court, interpreting Monsanto’s technology agreement as a contract
rather than a statutory PPV&FR right, nevertheless underscored that
 unauthorized use of protected germplasm attracts both civil and criminal
consequences, thereby affirming the enforceability of contract-based and
statutory remedies.
Conclusion
The PPV&FR Act, 2001 provides a multi-pronged enforcement framework—civil
injunctions and damages, administrative revocation and compulsory licensing,
criminal penalties and appellate remedies—to protect both breeders’ and
farmers’ rights. This integrated regime ensures that unauthorized use of
protected varieties is met with effective deterrence and redress, while
balancing access through compulsory licensing and revocation safeguards.
END
Question: Explain the concept and procedure of compulsory licensing of plant
varieties under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001.
1. Statutory Provision (§ 39)
Section 39 of the PPV&FR Act empowers the Authority to grant a
compulsory licence on a protected variety if it is not made available to
the public at a reasonable price or on reasonable terms within three
years of the grant of protection.
2. Grounds for Granting a Compulsory Licence
a. Non-Availability on Reasonable Terms: If the protected variety is not
sold or supplied to farmers at a price or on terms that the Authority
considers reasonable, any person may petition for a licence.
b. Public Interest Consideration: The Authority may also consider
broader public interest—food security, small-holder access, or public
health—to justify intervention.
3. Eligibility to Apply
Any person—farmer, seed producer, trader, or institution—may apply in
the prescribed form to the PPV&FR Authority, demonstrating that despite
a written request to the breeder, the variety remains unavailable on
acceptable terms for at least two months.
4. Application Procedure
a. Submission: The applicant files a petition with details of the variety,
evidence of price/terms sought from the breeder, and reasons why those
 are unreasonable.
b. Notice to Breeder: The Authority serves notice on the breeder, inviting
their response and justification of pricing or supply terms.
c. Hearing and Evidence: Both parties may present evidence; the
Authority may consult experts on agronomic and socio-economic factors
influencing “reasonable” access.
5. Authority’s Decision and Terms (§ 39[4])
a. Grant or Refusal: If the Authority is satisfied, it issues a compulsory
licence specifying the scope (quantity, geographic area), duration, and
financial terms (royalty or lump sum) payable to the breeder.
b. Royalty Determination: Royalty is fixed to ensure a fair return to the
breeder while safeguarding affordable access; guidelines issued by the
Authority inform this calculation.
c. Monitoring Compliance: The Authority monitors licence conditions
and may modify terms if circumstances change.
6. Duration and Scope
The compulsory licence remains in force for the balance period of the
original breeder’s right. It does not extinguish the breeder’s rights but
runs concurrent to ensure limited use under set conditions.
7. Appeal Mechanism (§ 41)
Any aggrieved party—applicant or breeder—may appeal the Authority’s
decision to the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal within sixty
days, and thereafter under special leave petition to the Supreme Court.
8. Case Law Illustration
While there is scant judicial precedent on compulsory licences under
Section 39, the very inclusion of this remedy reflects India’s policy
balance: rewarding breeders yet preventing monopolistic denial of
critical planting material to farmers.
Conclusion
Compulsory licensing under the PPV&FR Act, 2001 is a targeted safeguard to
ensure that protected plant varieties remain accessible to farmers and other
stakeholders at fair prices and on reasonable terms. By allowing third-party
licences when breeders fail public-interest tests, the Act reinforces its dual
objectives of incentivizing innovation while upholding farmers’ rights and seed
sovereignty.
END
Question: Explain the rights of plant breeders under the Protection of Plant
Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001.
1. Eligibility for Protection (§ 14)
A “breeder” includes any person who: (a) bred, or developed, a new
variety; (b) discovered and developed an extant variety; or (c)
contributed to the creation of an essentially derived variety. Breeders,
their successors, assignees or legal representatives may apply for
registration.
2. Exclusive Rights Conferred (§ 15)
Upon grant of protection, the breeder enjoys the sole right to produce,
sell, market, import, export and stock the protected variety. These rights
enable commercial exploitation while safeguarding the breeder’s
investment in research and development.
3. Research and Breeder’s Exemptions (§ 15[2])
The Act carves out a “research exemption”: any act done for bona fide
research, experimentation or breeding of other varieties does not
infringe the breeder’s rights. This ensures continual innovation and
avoids monopolistic blockade of subsequent improvements.
4. Duration of Protection (§ 27)
The term of protection runs for eighteen years from the date of grant for
field and horticultural crops, and fifteen years for trees and vines. After
expiry, the variety falls into the public domain, permitting free use by all.
5. Licensing and Assignment (§§ 30, 31)
Breeders may transfer (assign) or license their rights—wholly or partially
—by entering into a written agreement, which must be registered with
the Authority. This facilitates technology transfer, joint ventures, and
wider dissemination of new varieties.
6. Enforcement and Remedies (§ 58)
Breeders can enforce their rights through civil actions—seeking
 injunctions, damages or accounts of profits—and criminal proceedings
punishable by imprisonment (up to two years) or fines (not less than
₹50,000), deterring unauthorized use.
7. Compulsory Licence Safeguard (§ 39)
If a breeder fails to make the variety reasonably available within three
years, third parties may seek a compulsory licence, ensuring farmers’
access while paying fair royalties to the breeder.
8. Appellate Oversight (§ 41)
Decisions on registration, revocation or compulsory licensing may be
appealed to the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal within sixty
days, providing breeders a statutory forum for dispute resolution.
9. Case Law Illustration
In National Seed Association of India v. Union of India (2011), the Delhi
High Court upheld rigorous DUS testing standards and affirmed breeders’
exclusive rights, while balancing farmers’ exemptions—underscoring the
Act’s intent to foster innovation without stifling traditional practices.
Conclusion
Under the PPV&FR Act, 2001, plant breeders receive time‐bound, exclusive
commercial rights over protected varieties, tempered by research exemptions,
licensing flexibility, compulsory licences for public interest, and robust
enforcement mechanisms. This sui generis framework incentivizes varietal
innovation while preserving downstream breeding and farmers’ access.
END
Question: Z, a registered breeder whose registration is cancelled by the
Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority without giving
reasons for cancellation—can Z file a case against the Authority?
1. Statutory Appeal to the Appellate Tribunal (§ 41)
Under Section 41 of the PPV&FR Act, any person aggrieved by an order
of the Authority—including revocation or cancellation of registration—
may appeal to the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal within
sixty days of the order. The Tribunal has power to confirm, modify or set
aside the Authority’s decision, and to remit the matter back for fresh
consideration.
2. Requirement of Reasons and Principles of Natural Justice
a. Audi Alteram Partem: Administrative decisions affecting rights must
be preceded by notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
b. Reasoned Orders: In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the
Supreme Court held that every decision depriving a person of a right
must record intelligible reasons. A bare cancellation without reasons is
vulnerable to challenge for breach of natural justice.
3. Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
If the Authority fails to provide statutorily mandated reasons or denies Z
an opportunity of hearing, Z may file a writ petition (certiorari or
mandamus) in the High Court under Article 226, seeking quashing of the
cancellation order and a direction to issue fresh, reasoned show-cause
notices.
4. Grounds of Challenge
a. Illegality: Cancellation without following the revocation procedure laid
down in Sections 30–31 (which require notice, hearing and statement of
reasons).
b. Arbitrariness: Lack of reasoned basis renders the order arbitrary and
unconstitutional under Article 14 (equality before law).
c. Breach of Statutory Mandate: Failure to comply with the Act’s
procedural safeguards entitles Z to relief.
5. Procedure for Filing
a. Appeal: Submit memorandum of appeal along with certified copy of
the cancellation order to the Appellate Tribunal within sixty days (§ 41).
b. Writ Petition: Within the limitation period (usually 90 days) approach
the High Court, praying for quashing of the order, issuance of fresh show-
cause notice, and other appropriate reliefs.
6. Case Law Illustration
In Chandra Shankar v. State of M.P. (1981), the Madhya Pradesh High
Court quashed an order of licence cancellation for non-recording of
reasons and absence of hearing, stressing that administrative authorities
must comply with natural justice and statutory procedure.
Conclusion
Z has two parallel remedies. First, he can appeal to the Plant Varieties
Protection Appellate Tribunal under Section 41 of the PPV&FR Act, seeking
setting aside of the cancellation. Second, if the cancellation order violates
principles of natural justice or statutory procedure (Sections 30–31), Z may
invoke the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the order
and secure fresh, reasoned proceedings.
END
Question: Enumerate the legal issues relating to the protection of plant
varieties under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001.
1. Definition and Scope of “Variety”
– Ambiguity over whether landraces or farmers’ varieties qualify as
“extant varieties” (§ 2(zg)).
– Challenges in classifying essentially derived varieties versus varieties
with merely minor modifications (§ 2(aa)).
2. Novelty and Prior Sale
– Determining the cut-off date for novelty: whether “sold or otherwise
exploited” abroad affects novelty (§ 15).
– Disputes over informal seed exchanges as prior public use.
3. Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability (DUS) Standards
– Rigor and transparency of DUS testing protocols under the PPV&FR
(DUS Test) Regulations, 2006 (§ 19).
– Conflicts between breeders and small-holder interests when varieties
fail uniformity tests.
– Judicial validation in National Seed Association of India v. Union of
India (2011): upheld stringent DUS rules as within Authority’s mandate
(Facts: challenge to DUS regulations; Held: Regulations valid).
4. Farmers’ Privileges versus Breeders’ Exclusivity
– Tension between farmers’ rights to save, reuse and exchange seed (§
12) and breeders’ exclusive rights to commercialize (§ 15).
– Disputes when farmers’ seed-saving allegedly undermines seed
companies’ market.
5. Opposition and Revocation Procedures
– Procedural fairness in handling oppositions (§ 28–29): adequacy of
notice, evidence standards, and timelines.
– Grounds for revocation (§ 30–31) and the requirement for reasoned
orders; non-compliance invites challenge on grounds of natural justice
(Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978).
6. Compulsory Licensing
– Defining “reasonable price” and “terms” for access (§ 39).
– Balancing public interest and breeder remuneration.
– Lack of precedent creates uncertainty over evidence required to trigger
licence.
7. Benefit-Sharing and National Gene Fund
– Criteria and quantum for benefit-sharing contributions (§ 25) from
extant and farmers’ varieties.
– Transparency and accountability in disbursing funds from the National
Gene Fund (§ 37–38).
8. Interface with Patent Law and TRIPS Obligations
– Whether certain plant innovations should be protected under patents
or the sui generis PPV&FR regime (Article 27.3(b), TRIPS).
– Risk of dual protection and potential double-jeopardy in IPR
enforcement.
9. Enforcement and Remedies
– Adequacy of civil (injunctions, damages) and criminal penalties (§ 58)
to deter infringement.
– Capacity of courts and the Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal
(§ 41) to handle technical disputes.
– Case note: Monsanto Technology LLC v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd. (2014):
Court treated unauthorized use more as breach of contract than
statutory right, illustrating enforcement complexities (Facts: dispute over
technology-use agreement; Held: enforceable as contract).
[Link] Capacity and Governance
– Delays in DUS testing and registration due to limited testing stations.
 – Under-resourced PPV&FR Authority impacting timely grant of rights,
oppositions and compulsory licences.
Conclusion
Protecting plant varieties in India raises multifaceted legal issues—from
defining eligible varieties and calibrating DUS standards to balancing farmers’
and breeders’ rights, enforcing benefit-sharing, and aligning with international
patent obligations. Addressing these challenges requires clear regulations,
robust institutional capacity, and jurisprudence that harmonizes innovation
incentives with agrobiodiversity stewardship.
END
Question: A person obtains a compulsory license regarding a registered plant
variety, but the breeder fails to provide the necessary seeds to the licensee.
Decide and give reasons.
Answer:
1. Legal Framework – Section 39 of the PPV&FR Act, 2001:
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 provides
under Section 39(1)(iv) that a person may be granted a compulsory
license by the PPV&FR Authority to produce, sell, or distribute the seed or
propagating material of a registered variety, especially when the breeder
fails to make the seed available to the public at a reasonable price or in
reasonable quantity.
2. Obligation of the Breeder Post Licensing:
Once the compulsory license is granted, the breeder has an implied and
legal obligation to cooperate with the licensee. This includes providing
access to the parental lines, propagating material, or seeds necessary
for fulfilling the terms of the license. The breeder cannot obstruct the
implementation of the compulsory license through non-cooperation.
3. Legal Consequences of Breach by the Breeder:
a. Violation of Licensing Order: The refusal to provide necessary seeds
constitutes a breach of the order issued by the PPV&FR Authority. This
may amount to willful disobedience of a statutory directive.
b. Remedy for Licensee: The licensee can approach the PPV&FR
Authority to seek enforcement of the license terms. The Authority has
 powers under Section 39(4) to determine the terms and conditions of the
compulsory license and ensure compliance.
c. Revocation of Breeder’s Rights: As per Section 34(1)(c), if a breeder
fails to supply seeds or propagating material in accordance with the
reasonable requirements of the public or violates terms of compulsory
licensing, the Authority may revoke the registration of the breeder’s
variety.
d. Civil Liability: The breeder may also be held liable for damages
resulting from non-performance or obstruction of the licensee’s rights.
4. Principle of Equity and Public Interest:
The very objective of compulsory licensing under the Act is to protect
public interest, especially ensuring availability of quality seeds at
reasonable prices. Any act by the breeder to frustrate this objective
would be against the public policy underlying the Act.
5. Judicial Precedent and Interpretation:
While there is no direct precedent under the PPV&FR Act, the Supreme
Court in Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013), although under patent
law, emphasized that compulsory licensing exists to prevent
monopolistic exploitation and ensure public access. A similar rationale
would apply here.
Conclusion:
The breeder’s refusal to supply seeds after a compulsory license is granted is
illegal and defeats the purpose of the licensing regime. The licensee can seek
enforcement from the Authority, and the breeder may face revocation of
registration and possible civil liability. The breeder is duty-bound to
cooperate, and failure to do so amounts to obstruction of statutory rights.
END