[ad_1]
In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed PepsiCo India Holdings’ appeal against the revocation of the Variety of Plant Protection (PVP) certificate for a variety of potatoes.
The revocation order, issued in December 2021, by the Plant Variety Protection and Farmers’ Rights Commission, came after farmers’ rights activist Kavita Kuruganti filed a motion challenging PepsiCo’s infringement claim.
The reason for filing Kavitha Kuruganti’s annulment lawsuit arose from the fact that PepsiCo India Holdings had filed vexatious claims against several potato growers in Gujarat in 2018 and 2019 in the name of infringement of intellectual property rights. But in May 2019, it had to unconditionally withdraw all those cases in the face of intense public resistance.
The Delhi High Court ruled that it “did not find any merit in the present appeal”. Farmers’ rights activists called it a partial victory for farmers in India.
According to farmers’ rights activists, this is probably the first time that the lawsuit related to annulment has been adjudicated in the Indian courts under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPV & FR) Act 2001.
“The Act is a very unique piece of legislation in India, unparalleled anywhere in the world. This unique piece of legislation has been put in place by the legislators of India, to comply with the WTO TRIPS Agreement. It is a law incorporated through Section 39 (1) ( 4) Seed freedoms for farmers in terms of their right to conserve, use, sow, republish, exchange, share or sell their agricultural products including seeds of a variety protected under this law,” Kavita Kuruganti said in a press release.
“Farmers’ rights contained in this Act are in line with international treaties that recognize farmers’ rights, such as the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Others Working in Rural Areas.”
The appeal filed by PIH in the Delhi High Court raised several legal questions for adjudication, particularly with PepsiCo India’s applications for PVP registration in 2011 and 2012; Its actions against several potato growers in Gujarat in 2018 and 2019 and public interest in relation thereto, as well as in relation to the interpretation of certain provisions of the Plant Varieties Protection and Farmers’ Rights Act of India 2001.
“It is good that the judgment of Judge Naveen Chawla of Delhi High Court upheld the revocation order on at least three grounds – incorrect information regarding the date of first sale, unqualified registrant and failure to provide necessary documents, namely Sections 34(a), 34(b) and 34(c) of the Law),” Corugante added.
“However, it is regrettable that the violation of public interest, when it comes to disturbing prosecution of farmers in Gujarat, was not endorsed by Judge Chawla. It was noted that harassment of farmers is very relevant to the topic raised by the authority in its order of December 3, 2021. On the other hand, the judge considers Chawla in his judgment stated that Article 34(h) had not explained the reasons for revocation. A farmers’ rights activist said that Article 34(h) related to revocation on the grounds that granting a registration certificate is not in the public interest.”
“It is of great concern that in three proceedings so far (when PepsiCo was forced to unconditionally withdraw its cases against the Gujarat farmers in May 2019 through a public campaign, later when the certificate of registration was revoked in December 2021 and in the current judgment which refused PIH appeal), the issue of vexatious litigation against farmers has not been directly taken up by the judicial authorities as a matter of public interest,” Kuruganti expressed.
“Pepsi, which holds a botanical varietal certificate on a potato variety called FL-2027, has filed a disturbing and illegal lawsuit against several potato growers in Gujarat in 2018 and 2019. Kapil Shah, a Gujarat activist involved in the defense, said. Potato growers from the start, Rights is very clear in its provisions giving farmers access to any kind of seed they desire, including protected varieties.
“It appears that the Article 8 duties of the Authority to protect farmers’ rights must be consistently defended by vigilant citizens. However, the Authority can make use of this to assert and uphold the rights of farmers over the rights of IPR registrants, in letter and spirit as contained in the Act,” he added. Shah.
[ad_2]
