Dr Narinder Paul
Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act (PPV&FR Act) 2001 has recently been in news with a multinational food and beverages company filing 4.2 crores law suits in different courts across Gujarat against potato farmers from Sabarkantha and Aravalli districts of Gujarat for allegedly growing a specific potato variety used for making a particular brand of potato chips sold in Indian market which it claims has been registered by the company in 2016 under PPV&FR Act 2001. The company charged and filed cases against these small farmers under section 64 and 65 of PPV&FR Act 2001 and has claimed the infringement of its rights pertaining to that particular variety of “chips making potato” and globally the narrative being put is on the violation of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) of company by the Indian farmers. But it is only one side of the coin, the other being that the same PPV&FR Act 2001 has many special exemptions granted to the farmers of the country.
Chapter VI of the PPV&FR Act 2001 has very clearly secured the farmers’ rights. In section 39, Sub-section 1(iv) it says, “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, 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 provided that the farmer shall not be entitled to sell branded seed of a variety protected under this Act.” Moreover, the Act further explains, “for the purpose of clause (iv), “branded seed” means any seed put in a package or any other container and labeled in a manner indicating that such seed is of a variety protected under this Act.”
It clearly implies that this Act fully gives the farmers of the country, the right to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share and sell their farm produce of any variety registered under the Act including the potato variety which has been claimed by the company as registered with PPV&FR Act 2001. The sued potato farmers from Gujarat are alleged to have brought the planting material/seed from company’s corporate farmers from Punjab, which means the Punjab farmers have shared their seed/planting material with Gujarat farmers for which the Act provides them freedom. One more thing is that the said variety was claimed to be introduced in 2011 and was registered in 2016. Adoption and diffusion researches reveal that diffusion of an innovation when put to public domain is inevitable in a social system. And that might have resulted in the diffusion and horizontal spread of the said variety from Punjab to Gujarat between 2011 and 2016.
Now the question is; were the farmers being charged found selling the “branded seed” of the potato variety? But as reported, they were growing potato as crop and not as seed. The company’s rights would have been infringed if the farmers were selling the branded seeds/planting material of the said variety. Further, had they been found selling branded seed, they would not have been sued in the way, they have been as Article 42 of the PPV&FR Act 2001 provides protection to the Indian farmers in case of “innocent infringement.” It explains, “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, a right established under this Act shall not be deemed to be infringed by a farmer who at the time of such infringement was not aware of the existence of such right; and a relief which a court may grant in any suit for infringement referred to in section 65 (suits for infringement etc.) shall not be granted by such court, nor any cognizance of any offence under this Act shall be taken, for such infringement by any court against a farmer who proves, before such court, that at the time of the infringement he was not aware of the existence of the right so infringed.”
One more issue related to the potato variety is to ascertain whether it has been registered under PPV&FR Act 2001 as an “extant variety”, or “new variety. If it is registered as an extant variety then as per Section 2 (j), “extant variety” means a variety available in India which is (i) notified under section 5 of the Seeds Act, 1966 (54 of 1966); or (ii) farmers’ variety; or (iii) a variety about which there is common knowledge; or (iv) any other variety which is in public domain. Briefly it would mean the variety was already available in the country before it was registered and that there was “common knowledge” about this variety and it would surely have been produced in the country before it was registered. All these things need to be clarified. Of late, the company has now offered “out of court settlement” of the issue with the condition that either the farmers stop using the seed, surrender their existing stocks or join its corporate farming programme. Counsel for the sued farmers has however requested the court for grant of time to discuss the settlement proposal with the farmers till next hearing probably during the second week of June, 2019. Moreover, court has extended its previous order restricting the concerned farmers from using the seeds/planting material of the said potato variety till the next hearing.
No doubt political arena has been set up with the involvement of different political groups over the issue along with the involvement of various farmer organizations with pot boiling twitter war and debates coupled with boycott calls on the social media but the biggest question at the moment is that who will defend farmers’ rights as granted under PPV&FR Act 2001? It’s time to see whether charging Indian farmers under that Act which provides them rights for which they have been charged, is rather violation of farmers rights under PPV&FR Act 2001 or not? Isn’t it blatant use of corporate muscle power and wealth for intimidation, unnecessary harassment of Indian farmers and promotion of forced corporate hooliganism violating the rights of Indian farmers? Will corporate sectors’ interests decide and implement in a dictatorial manner what Indian farmers should cultivate or not? The way in which the evidences were collected from the farmers’ fields or stores too raises many questions. Were the standard procedures followed for the collections of samples which have reportedly been tested at various laboratories across the country? Can we further allow the illegal and forceful trespassing of Indian farmers’ premises by anyone? Doesn’t it make our farmers vulnerable to the corporate players and violate our farmers’ privacy and rights? Who will protect the interests of the farmers in a country which is primarily an agrarian economy? And above all who will protect the rights of Indian farmers granted under PPV&FA Act 2001?
Farmers of the country must be aware of the Act and their rights under the Act. Creating awareness among the farming community regarding PPV&RF Act 2001 has now become imperative. Besides, identification and registration of available traditional varieties of crops, fruits and vegetables being cultivated by the farming community under PPV&FR Act 2001 is essentially required to protect their exploitation by the private sector. It is quite satisfactory that Krishi Vigyan Kendras of SKUAST Jammu has already initiated the process of identification and registration of traditional varieties of Jammu Division under PPV&FR Act 2001 which would provide ownership rights to the concerned farmers and/or their communities. With the corporate sector entering the farming business, our farmers have become more prone to such types of cases in future. It is an awakening call for all of us. The outcome of this litigation would have far reaching repercussions on the Indian agriculture and more specifically on small and marginal farmers and our commitment to double the farmers’ income by 2022. Wait! And let justice prevail.
(The author is from Krishi Vigyan Kendra Doda, SKUAST Jammu)
feedbackexcelsior@gmail.com
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel