PepsiCo can pursue seed-infringement claims, but farmers may invoke statutory rights to save and exchange protected seeds, Supreme Court clarifies

Pepsi Co India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. applied under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (“PPV&FR Act”) for registration of “FL 2027” as a new variety, stating that its first commercial sale occurred on 17 December 2009. Its claim was based on an Assignment Deed dated 26 September 2003 executed by the original breeder in favour of a United States-based affiliate of Pepsi Co

Kavitha Kuruganti, representing the interests of individual farmers, sought revocation of the registration under Section 34 of the Act. The revocation order was challenged by Pepsi Co before the High Court. The Single Judge partly accepted Pepsi Co’s case and partly sustained the revocation order; both parties thereafter appealed, resulting in a common Division Bench judgment challenged before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court correctly considered the applicability of the farmers’ protection under Section 39(1)(iv) of the PPV&FR Act and the allegation that Pepsi Co’s infringement suits against farmers justified revocation under Section 34(h)

2. Whether the Supreme Court could restrain Pepsi Co from pursuing legal proceedings for alleged infringement, notwithstanding the statutory rights available to individual farmers under Section 39(1)(iv)

The Court applied Section 39(1)(iv) of the PPV&FR Act, which preserves a farmer’s right to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share, or sell farm produce, including seed of a protected variety, in the same manner as before the Act came into force, subject to the limitation that the farmer cannot sell branded seed of a protected variety

It also applied Section 34(h), under which registration may be revoked on the relevant statutory ground, including where the circumstances warrant such revocation in the public interest

The Court further recognised that filing suits to enforce statutory rights is not, by itself, intimidatory, vexatious, or a predatory tactic; allegations of vexatious litigation must be established before the appropriate forum in the relevant proceedings

The Court held that the High Court had in fact considered both Section 39(1)(iv) and the public-interest allegation forming the basis of the Section 34(h) challenge

The allegation against Pepsi Co was founded principally on its institution of infringement suits against individual farmers. The High Court correctly found that there was no material establishing that those suits were vexatious or had been filed as a predatory strategy. Since the mere filing of suits to protect rights conferred by statute cannot, without more, attract Section 34(h), the Supreme Court found no basis to interfere with the High Court’s determination

At the same time, recognising that the petitioner was acting in the interests of farmers rather than pursuing a personal claim, the Court clarified that an individual farmer may invoke Section 39(1)(iv) and prove its applicability in any infringement proceeding brought by Pepsi Co

It clarified that any individual farmer claiming protection under Section 39(1)(iv) may raise and establish that statutory protection in proceedings initiated by Pepsi Co. However, Pepsi Co cannot be restrained from pursuing legal remedies where it alleges infringement of its statutory rights

Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of