The Supreme Court has clarified that individual farmers can invoke the statutory protection available under Section 39(1)(iv) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (PPV&FR Act), while at the same time holding that a plant variety rights holder cannot be restrained from pursuing legal remedies where it alleges infringement of its statutory rights.

The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran has observed that the petitioner was not pursuing a personal cause but was seeking to protect the interests of farmers. Against this backdrop, it clarified that any individual farmer claiming protection under Section 39(1)(iv) would be entitled to assert that statutory protection in proceedings initiated by PepsiCo.

Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026

The proceedings arose from PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.’s application for registration of FL 2027 under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001. The company had described FL 2027 as a new variety seed and indicated December 17, 2009 as the date of its first commercial sale.

The application was based on an Assignment Deed dated September 26, 2003, executed by the original breeder in favour of a company in the United States, which was stated to be an affiliate of PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.

The controversy subsequently involved the validity of the registration and the statutory rights available to farmers in relation to protected plant varieties.

Kavitha Kuruganti, who approached the proceedings while canvassing the interests of individual farmers, sought revocation of the registration under Section 34 of the PPV&FR Act.

The revocation order was challenged by PepsiCo before the High Court through an appeal provided under the statute. The Single Judge of the High Court ruled in favour of PepsiCo on certain aspects while sustaining the revocation order on other grounds.

Both sides thereafter filed appeals before the High Court, resulting in a common judgment which was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court.

The principal surviving controversy before the Supreme Court concerned the interpretation and application of Section 39(1)(iv) of the PPV&FR Act.

The provision recognises a farmer’s right, notwithstanding other provisions of the Act, to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell farm produce, including seed of a protected variety, in the same manner as the farmer was entitled to do before the Act came into force.

However, the provision contains an important limitation: a farmer is not entitled to sell branded seed of a variety protected under the Act.

The petitioner contended before the Supreme Court that this protection for farmers was central to the dispute and had not been adequately dealt with by the High Court.

The Supreme Court, however, observed that the High Court had in fact considered Section 39(1)(iv), along with the allegation of public interest forming part of the challenge to the registration under Section 34(h).

Another significant aspect of the case concerned various suits instituted by PepsiCo against individual farmers alleging infringement of its statutory rights.

The High Court had considered the allegation that such litigation amounted to a vexatious or predatory tactic. It found that merely pointing to the filing of several suits against individual farmers was insufficient to establish that the proceedings were vexatious or that they constituted a predatory strategy.

The Supreme Court expressly agreed with this reasoning.

The Court held that the institution of suits for protection of rights conferred by statute cannot, by itself, be characterised as intimidatory or vexatious. Consequently, the Court found no basis to interfere with the High Court’s conclusion that Section 34(h) was not attracted on that ground.

The Supreme Court also endorsed the High Court’s observation that if a particular suit is alleged to be vexatious, that allegation must be raised and established at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum.

While declining to interfere with the High Court judgment, the Supreme Court made an important clarification concerning the rights of individual farmers.

Such a farmer would have the opportunity to establish that the farmer falls within the protection granted by the provision.

This clarification preserves the statutory safeguard available to farmers without converting that protection into a blanket prohibition against enforcement proceedings by a registered rights holder.

At the same time, the Supreme Court drew a clear line between a farmer’s statutory defence and an absolute immunity from legal proceedings.

The Court specifically stated that it could not restrain PepsiCo from taking legal remedies where its rights are infringed.

Thus, the order does not hold that every farmer dealing with a protected variety is automatically immune from proceedings. Instead, the protection under Section 39(1)(iv) has to be established by an individual farmer in the relevant proceeding.

The ruling therefore maintains a balance between the statutory recognition of farmers’ traditional seed-related rights and the ability of a registered rights holder to protect its legally recognised interests.

After considering the submissions and the surviving controversy, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the Division Bench judgment of the High Court.

The Special Leave Petitions were accordingly disposed of, with pending applications, if any, also standing disposed of.

The Supreme Court’s order reinforces two parallel principles under the PPV&FR Act.

First, farmers retain the statutory right under Section 39(1)(iv) to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell farm produce, including seed of a protected variety, subject to the statutory restriction against selling branded seed.

Second, that statutory protection does not prevent the holder of plant variety rights from initiating legal proceedings where it claims infringement. An individual farmer can invoke Section 39(1)(iv) as a defence and establish before the appropriate forum that the farmer falls within the provision’s protection.

The Court also made it clear that the mere filing of infringement suits cannot automatically be treated as a vexatious or predatory tactic. A specific allegation of vexatious litigation has to be properly raised and proved before the competent forum.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Civil Money Disputes Can’t Be Used as Recovery Tool: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings