Kavitha Kuruganti vs Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2026 INSC 811

Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.10320-10321 of 2024


Kavitha Kuruganti …. Petitioner (s)

Versus

PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. …. Respondent (s)

O R D E R

Having heard Sri Colin Gonsalves, learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner and Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for
the first respondent, we find that the controversy surviving in the
above case is very narrow.
2. The first respondent applied for registration under the
1
Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 ,
describing FL 2027 as a new variety seed with the date of first
commercial sale indicated to be 17.12.2009; based on an Assignment
Deed dated 26.09.2003 by the original breeder, to a company in the
United States of America, which is an affiliate of the first respondent.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
HARPREET KAUR
Date: 2026.08.06
18:54:42 IST
Reason:

1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’
Page 1 of 4

3. The petitioner herein, canvassing the rights of individual
farmers, approached the authority for a revocation under Section 34
of the Act. The revocation order passed was challenged by the first
respondent before the High Court in an appeal, as provided under
the Act. The learned Single Judge held in favour of the first
respondent in certain aspects and sustained the revocation order on
some other aspects. Both the petitioner and the first respondent filed
appeals before the High Court. A common judgment passed is
impugned before us.

4. The controversy arising is as to the application of Section 39
(1)(iv) which is extracted hereinbelow: -
“ 39. Farmers’ rights . —(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in 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:
Provided that the farmer shall not be entitled to sell branded
seed of a variety protected under this Act.”


5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that this was
the concern all along agitated by the petitioner, which has not been
dealt with by the High Court. On the contrary, we find from the
impugned order that the High Court has dealt with Section 39(1)(iv)
of the Act and the allegation of public interest leading to a revocation
under Section 34(h) of the Act.
Page 2 of 4

6. The High Court has clearly found that the allegation was raised
merely with reference to various suits filed by the first respondent,
alleging infringement against individual farmers. The High Court,
according to us, rightly found that there was nothing to establish that
these suits were vexatious or that they had been instituted as a
predatory tactic of the first respondent. Filing of suits for the
protection of rights conferred under the statute, per se cannot be held
to be intimidatory or vexatious. Section 34(h) of the Act, hence, was
not attracted, according to the High Court and if there was any
allegation of a vexatious suit, then the same would have to be raised
and proved at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum,
held the High Court. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with
the same.
7. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner is not
agitating a personal cause and is attempting to protect the interest of
the farmers, we only make it clear that any individual farmer who
claims protection under Section 39(1)(iv) of the Act, would be entitled
to do so in any proceeding initiated by the first respondent and prove
that they come under its cover. However, we make it clear that we
cannot restrain the first respondent from taking legal remedies, if
their rights are infringed.
Page 3 of 4

8. With the above observation, the Special Leave Petitions are
disposed of finding no reason to interfere with the judgment in
appeal passed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.


.……………………………... J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)



..………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 05, 2026.
Page 4 of 4