PepsiCo FL 2027 Variety Case: Supreme Court Declines to Interfere but Protects Farmers' Section 39 Defence

Case at a glance: The Supreme Court has disposed of a farmers' rights activist's petitions against a High Court Division Bench ruling in the dispute over PepsiCo's registration of the “FL 2027” variety under the PPV&FR Act, 2001. It found no reason to interfere, but clarified that any individual farmer may claim protection under Section 39(1)(iv) in proceedings PepsiCo brings.

PepsiCo India applied for registration of “FL 2027” as a new variety under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001, stating the date of first commercial sale as 17 December 2009 and relying on a 2003 assignment deed from the original breeder to a US affiliate. The petitioner, acting to protect farmers' rights, sought revocation under Section 34 and succeeded before the authority.

On PepsiCo's appeal, a Single Judge of the High Court ruled partly each way, and both sides appealed. The Division Bench's common judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court; the petitioner argued, among other things, that the High Court ignored Section 39(1)(iv).

The Key Question Before the Court

Did the High Court overlook farmers' rights under Section 39(1)(iv), and do infringement suits against farmers justify revocation in the public interest?

Suits Are Not Per Se Vexatious; Farmers Keep Their Defence

The Court found that the High Court had considered both Section 39(1)(iv) and the public-interest allegation under Section 34(h). That allegation rested only on PepsiCo's infringement suits against individual farmers, and nothing showed these were vexatious or predatory. The Court agreed that “filing of suits for the protection of rights conferred under the statute, per se cannot be held” to be intimidatory or vexatious; such allegations must be raised and proved before the appropriate forum.

Section 39(1)(iv) deems a farmer entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell farm produce, including seed of a protected variety, but not to sell branded seed. Since the petitioner was pursuing farmers' interests, the Court clarified that any individual farmer who claims this protection may do so in any proceeding PepsiCo initiates and must prove coverage there, while PepsiCo cannot be restrained from pursuing its remedies.

What the Court Actually Held

• The Court found no reason to interfere with the Division Bench judgment.
• Filing infringement suits to protect statutory rights is not by itself vexatious or intimidatory.
• Any individual farmer may claim protection under Section 39(1)(iv) in proceedings PepsiCo initiates.
• The SLPs were disposed of with these clarifications.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It preserves the farmers' statutory defence in plant variety infringement cases.
• It confirms that rights-holders may sue without that alone supporting revocation.
• It directs allegations of vexatious litigation to the appropriate forum.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Farmers' Counsel

• Plead Section 39(1)(iv) specifically and lead evidence that the farmer is covered.
• Note the bar on selling branded seed of a protected variety.

For Rights-Holders

• Infringement suits are permitted, but abusive litigation can be challenged in the proper forum.
• Expect farmers to raise the Section 39 defence in every proceeding.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

The Court did not decide that afresh; it declined to interfere with the High Court Division Bench judgment.

Farmers may save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell farm produce, including seed of a protected variety, but not branded seed.

Yes, the Court said it cannot restrain PepsiCo from legal remedies, but farmers may claim Section 39 protection.

Conclusion

Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →