Seeds of Despair

* Bimal Prasad Pandia

The amendments proposed to Seed Bill, 2004 do not make it any less dreaded. The amendments are mere cosmetic in nature and have not incorporated the Standing Committee’s recommendations where it really matter. It still exposes the Indian farmers to the perilous ideas of the private seed companies.

Had the Indian Parliament not been engrossed in the ‘IPL’ fiasco, the amended Seed Bill would have already been tabled in the Rajya Sabha by now. The Seed Bill that was first tabled in year 2004 was a sham on Indian agriculture and the farming community and in the name of ensuring quality and regulation to the seed industry, it infringes upon the rights of the farmers to have their own seeds quite blatantly. After severe pressure, the Bill was sent to a Standing Committee. The Standing Committee submitted its recommendations in 2006.  Now the Central Government is ready to table the amended Seed Bill as Seed Bill, 2010.

Please have a closure look at the comparison of the original Seed Bill of 2004; the recommendations of the Standing Committee; and the amendments proposed in the Seed Bill of 2010. It makes amply clear that the government has left the original seed Bill untouched at critical places - especially where the interest and profit motives of the seed companies are in question. It leaves ample scopes to the private seed companies and multinationals to play their dirty tricks and the cost of Indian farmers. Thus, the amended Seed Bill, 2010 is as unwelcome as its 2004 edition. 

Let’s oppose the Seed Bill, 2010 and tell our MPs that the government has least bothered to accept to the recommendations made by them as part of Standing Committee members.

By the way we do not require a new seed bill at all. The Seed Act, 1966 and PPV&FR Act, 2001 are already there. The new Seed Bill intended to give back door entries to the private seed producers and multinational seed companies and nothing else. Farmers of our country know the art to preserve and procure high quality seeds of various species and varieties to feed themselves and others pretty well. The Seeds companies have failed the farmers in the past and if the present Bill goes with the present contents it will make farmers puppets of the seed companies and will make their farming even more vulnerable.

We have very less time left for us to act and stall the Bill. The Rajya Sabha has already lost a lot of time this session and there is every possibility that it will continue to be so in the next few days due to the newly emerged phone tapping issue. Hence, there is every possibility that the Bill will be tabled and be passed without any debate towards the fag end of the session. Thus we have to be doubly careful of it, be proactive quite vociferously. 

What was in the Seed Bill, 2004	What the Standing Committee suggested	What is in the proposed Seed Bill, 2010	Implication
1(3)(b) every producer of seed except when the seed is produced by him for his own use and not for sale.	The Clause 1(3)(b) should read as under: every producer of seed, other than farmer, except when the seed is produced by him for his own use.	1(3)(b) every producer of seed, other than farmer, except when the seed is produced by him for his own use.	The suggestion of the committee has been accepted.
Definition of farmer; Clause 2(9): “farmer” means any person who cultivates crops either by cultivating the land himself or through any other person  but does not include any individual, company, trader or dealer who engages in the procurement and sale of seeds on a commercial basis;	The Committee observe that the definition of farmer is incomplete. Therefore, the following words should be added after the words ‘through any other person’ to make the definition of farmer more comprehensive:‘or who conserves and preserves, severally or jointly with any person, any traditional varieties or adds value to such traditional varieties through selection and identification of their useful properties’	2(11) "farmer" means any person who cultivates crops either by cultivating the land himself or through any other person or who conserves or preserves, severally or jointly with any person, any traditional varieties or adds value to such   traditional varieties through selection and identification of their useful properties, but does not include any individual, com pany, trader or dealer who engages in the procurement and sale of seeds on a commer cial basis;	The suggestion of the committee has been accepted.
	The Committee recommend that a suitable clause should be added to the Bill itself for describing the mechanism for disposal of misbranded and spurious seeds so that undesirable seeds are not sold in the market.
2(19)      “producer” means a person, group of persons, firm or organisation who grows or organizes the production of seeds;	Clause 2 (19) should read as under: “producer” means a person, group of persons other than the farmer, firm or organisation who grows or organizes the production of seeds;	2(19) "producer" means a person, group of persons, firm or organisation who grows or organizes the production of seeds, but does not include a farmer;
27 (1) (b)   individuals or seed producing organisations to carry out self- certification, in such manner as may be prescribed.	The Committee strongly recommends that the provision of self-certification in the Bill should be dispensed with.	27. (1) the State government may, with the prior approval of the Central government,   accredit the organizations owned or controlled by the Central government or the State governments to carry out certification, on the fulfillment of such criteria, as may be prescribed.
	The powers of the Central Seed Committee given in the Bill are very comprehensive, yet there is no mention of price regulation of seeds either by the Central Seed Committee or State levels Committee or by any other agency/authority. The Committee feel that the Seed Company will be getting exclusive, perpetual and monopolistic rights over the seed prices… … The Committee recommend that a price regulatory provision should be provided in the Bill itself so as to ensure that the farmers are not charged arbitrary price by the seed producer/supplier.		The amended Bill has not made any provision with regard to ‘price regulation’. The seed companies will continue to have the perpetual and monopolistic rights over the seed prices.
20.    Where the seed of any registered kind or variety is sold   to a farmer, the producer, distributor or vendor, as the case may be, shall disclose the expected performance of such kind or variety to the farmer under given conditions, and if, such registered seed fails to provide the expected performance under such given conditions, the farmer may claim compensation from the producer, distributor or vendor under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.	The Committee are of the opinion that the farming community in the rural areas, are not aware of the existence of the Consumer   Protection Act, 1986 or the District Consumer Forum or the State Consumer Council or for that matter any other authority set up for the purpose of claiming compensation. The Committee strongly feel that compensation provision should be included in the Bill itself on the lines of Clause 39 (2) of the Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, which can be implemented through specially designated arbitration Tribunal/ Compensation Committee or any other authority constituted for this purpose by the Government.	20. (1) Where the seed of registered kind or variety is sold to a farmer, the producer, distributor or vendor, as the case may be, shall disclose the expected performance of such kind or variety to the farmer under given conditions, and if, such registered seed fails to provide the expected performance under such given conditions, the farmer may claim compensation from the producer, dealer, distributor or vendor as may be determined a compensation Committee. (2) The Central government may prescribe ;- (a) the composition and experience of the members of the Compensation Committee; (b) the procedure to be followed by such Compensation Committee; (c) the manner of giving compensation by such Compensation Committee to the farmer; (d) the time within which the compensation so determined shall be paid to the farmer. (3) Any compensation determined by the Compensation Committee under sub-section (1) if not paid to the concerned farmer, shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue. (4) any farmer aggrieved from the decision of the Compensation Committee may prefer an appeal to the prescribed authority which shall dispose off the appeal within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed.	The compensation committee may be even further out of reach of the farmer. The Bill is too ambiguous on where these committees will be located and how they will be more accessible to the farmers.
	The Committee feels that ‘seed crop insurance’ scheme should be re-introduced by incorporating a suitable provision in the Bill itself so as to award timely compensation to the farmers. The seed producer should pay the premium for the seed insurance.		This recommendation of the committee has been not incorporated at all. The government has succumbed to the seed company lobby and protecting their   interests at the cost of the farmer.
	The Committee are in agreement with the conclusions arrived at a symposium organized by the Government on seed sector reforms that a seed mark, or symbol on the lines of Agmark to denote quality of the seed should be introduced and the labelling provisions under the Seeds Act should be harmonized with the provisions of other Acts such as Weights & Measurement Act, Package Act, etc.		This recommendation has not been heeded.
35.(1)   The Seed Inspector may-  (c)        enter and search, at all reasonable times, with such assistance, if any, as he considers necessary, any place in which he has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed and order in writing the person in possession of any seed in respect of which the offence has been or is being committed, not to dispose of any stock of such seed for a specific period not exceeding thirty days or, unless the alleged offence is such that the defect may be removed by the possessor of the seed, seize the stock of such seed;  (2)        The power conferred by this section includes the power to break-open any container in which any seed of any kind or variety may be contained or to break-open the door of any premises where any such seed may be kept for sale:            Provided that the power to break-open the door shall be exercised only after the owner or any other person in occupation of the premises, if he is present therein, refuses to open the door on being called upon to do so. (3)        Where the Seed Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), he shall, as far as possible, call not less than two persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take their signatures on a memorandum to be prepared in such form and manner as may be prescribed.	The Committee apprehend that Clause 35 will bring an ‘Inspector Raj’ to exploit the poor farmers. Under this Clause the inspector can enter and search any place in which he has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed. The Committee strongly recommend that the controls over the power of the inspector should also be provided in the Act itself. The inspector should be allowed to search or break open any premises only on the written orders of the District Collector or a Magistrate specially authorised to exercise the powers given under the Seeds Act. Moreover, as the farmers are not selling any branded seeds, they should be exempted from this Clause.	35. (1) The Seed Inspector may in such manner as may be prescribed— (c) enter and search with prior written authorization of the District Magistrate, at all reasonable times, with such assistance, if any, as he considers necessary, any place in which he has reason to believe that an offence under this Act has been or is being committed and order in writing the person in possession of any seed in respect of which the offence has been or is being committed, not to dispose of any stock of such seed for a specific period not exceeding fifteendays or, unless the alleged offence is such that the defect may be removed by the possessor of the seed, seize the stock of such seed; (3) Where the Seed Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), he shall, as far as possible, call not less than two independent persons from the same locality to be present at the time when such action is taken and take their signatures on a memorandum to be prepared in such form and manner as may be prescribed.	While some modification by adding ‘with prior written authorization of the District Magistrate’ to Clause 35 (1) (C) has been made, no such change has been made to Clause 35 (2). Further the amended bill has not heeded to the suggestions made by the standing committee to exempt farmers from this clause. The new amendments to control the inspectors  is too insignificant.
4(4)(iv) The committee (Central Seed Committee) will have “two representatives of farmers;”	The Committee feel that two representatives of the farmers in the Central Seed Committee is too small a representation keeping in view the number of farmers in our country. Since the farming in India is of a diverse nature, as there are different kinds of land formations and climatic zones, the Committee recommend that farmers representation on the Central Seed Committee should be raised to five Members, one each from different geographical zones.	the representatives of farmers, one each from the geographical zones of the country as specified in the Schedule on rotation basis;
5(e) seed registration and its enforcement;	The powers of the Central Seed Committee given in the Bill are very comprehensive, yet there is no mention of price regulation of seeds either by the Central Seed Committee or State levels Committee or by any other agency/authority. The Committee feel that the Seed Company will be getting exclusive, perpetual and monopolistic rights over the seed prices… The Committee, therefore, recommend that a price regulatory provision should be made in the Bill itself to ensure that the farmers are not charged exaggerated price by the seed supplier……. This can be done by setting up a sub-Committee of the Central Seed Committee to control the prices of the seeds and for that the Clause 5 (e) should be amended and read as under,  ‘Seeds registration, its enforcement and price regulation;’	5(e) seed registration and its enforcement;	Price regulation is an important concern. But the government has not heeded to this important suggestion of the committee and no change has been made either to the Clause 5(e) or anywhere else in the amended bill to include price regulation mechanism. As in the original bill, the seed companies will be required to only furnish ‘the production, stocks, sales and prices of planting material in the nursery at such intervals as may be prescribed.’
7 (2)   It shall be the duty of the Registration Sub-Committee-  (a)   to register seeds of varieties after scrutinizing their claims as made in the application in such manner as may be prescribed;	The Committee recommends that the Clause 7 should be suitably amended to hold the Central/State Seed Certification Committee responsible for the powers exercised and functions under Clause 5 and issuance of seed certificate under Clauses 13, 14 and 28 of the Bill. In Clause 7(2)(a) the word, ‘kinds and’ should be added after the words, ‘to register seeds of’.	7. (2) It shall be the duty of the Registration Sub-Committee— (a) to register kinds of varieties of seeds after scrutinizing their claims as made in the application in such manner as may be prescribed;	The Committee suggested to include ‘kinds and’ and but the amendment adds ‘kinds of’. This small difference is big enough to keep the committee still out of any accountability towards the seed purchasers. There is clear ambiguity to nail the seed committee for false certification. Even the standing committee did not give clear recommendations on this. We strongly object to this ‘let off’.
Clause 12 (1) a register of all kinds and varieties of seeds to be called the National Register of Seeds shall be kept by the registration Sub-Committee wherein all specifications, as may be prescribed, shall be maintained.	The Committee are of the opinion that the farmers’ varieties should be entirely excluded from the registration in the Seeds Bill. The Committee, therefore, recommend that the following words should be added to Clause 12: ‘However, Farmers will not be required to register farmers’ varieties in the National Register Of Seeds’.	12. (1) For the purposes of this Act, a register of all kinds and varieties of seed to be called the National Register of Seeds shall be kept by the Registration Sub-Committee wherein all specifications, as may be prescribed, shall be maintained, Provided that the farmers shall not be required to register the farmers varieties of seeds in the said register.
13.(1)  No seed of any kind or variety shall, for the purpose of sowing or planting by any person, be sold unless such seed is registered under sub-section (2) by the Registration Sub-Committee in such manner as may be prescribed.	In order to exempt the farmers from compulsory registration of their seeds, the words ‘except the farmers’ variety’ should be added after the words ‘No seed of any kind of variety’ and Clause 13 (1) may read as under ‘No seed of any kind or variety, except the farmers’ variety, shall, for the purpose of sowing or planting by any person,   be sold unless such seed is registered under sub-section (2) by the Registration Sub-Committee in such manner as may be prescribed.’	13. (1) No seed of any kind or variety except the farmers variety shall, for the purpose of sowing or planting by any person, be sold unless such kind or variety is registered under sub-section (2) by the Registration Sub-Committee in such manner as may be prescribed.	The recommendation of the Committee has been accepted.
13 (4) Registration made under this Act shall be valid for a period of fifteen years in the case of annual and biennial crops, and eighteen years for long duration perennials.   13 (5) At the expiry of the period granted under sub-section (4), the kind or variety of seed may be re-registered for a like period by the Registration Sub-Committee on the basis of information furnished by the producer on the results of such  trials as may be prescribed under sub-section (2)  to re-establish performance of the kind or variety of seed.	The Committee are of a firm opinion that this provision of re-registration will give monopolistic control on the seeds marketing by the seed industry, which may go on exploiting the farmers for unlimited period. Even the period of fifteen years, in case of annual and biennial crops, and eighteen years for long duration perennials, is quite a long time considering the progress/innovations in research and development   being made in the agricultural sector worldwide… The duration of registration period for any kind or variety of a seed should be reduced to ten and twelve years for annual & biennial crops and perennials, respectively. The Committee, strongly recommend that this provision of re-registration under Clause 13 (5) should be deleted.	13(4) A registration made under this Act shall be valid for a period of ten years in the case of annual and biennial crops, and twelve years for long duration perennials. 13(5) At the expiry of the period granted under sub-section (4), the kind or variety of seeds may be re-registered for a like period by the Registration Sub-Committee on the basis of information furnished by the producer on the results of such trials as may be prescribed under sub-section (2) to re-establish performance of the kind or variety of seeds.	While the recommendation with regard to Clause 13 (4) has been adhered to in the amended bill, Standing Committee’s ‘strong’ recommendation to delete the provision of re-registration under Clause 13 (5) has not been accepted. We are of the opinion that validity of registration from 15 years to 10 and 18 years to 12 is mere cosmetic. This will still ensure substantial monopolistic control by the seed companies. Further non-deletion of the clause (5) is will ensure that seeds companies continue to get enough time to maneuver and monopolies.
Seed Bill, 2004 had no provision for ‘pre-grant opposition to registration of new kind of variety of seed.	The Committee recommends that a suitable Clause containing the pre-grant opposition to the registration of the new kind or variety of the seed be added to the Bill.	The amended Seed Bill does not have provisions for ‘pre-grant opposition’ either.	This is an important recommendation that has not been included in the amended bill. The standing committee had reasoned that “The Committee notes that there is no provision in the present Bill for pre-grant opposition to registration of a new kind or variety of seed, on the lines of Section 21 of the PPV&FR Act 2001, to ensure more transparency. They are of the considered view that a provision for pre-grant opposition will allow legitimate opposition to the grant of a registration of a new variety before registration is granted. Thus, people will have an opportunity to raise objections, if they have reason to believe that the variety is not what is being claimed or the person opposing the application is entitled to the breeder’s right as against the applicant or the variety may have adverse effect on the environment or any other reason which the Government may consider appropriate for pre-grant opposition to the registration of any new kind or variety of a seed.” Now there is no scope to oppose registration of seeds before its registration.
Seed Bill, 2004 silent on the origin and ownership aspect of seed.	The Committee recommend that a sub-Clause may be added to the Clause 14 as under: ‘Every application for registration under Section 13 shall contain a complete passport data of the parental lines from which the variety has been derived and from where the genetic material has been taken and all such information relating to the contribution, if any, of any farmer, village community, institution or organisation in breeding, evolving or developing the variety’.	The amended bill still stays same with regard to origin and ownership aspect of seed.	The committee had reasoned that, “The Committee note that the present Seeds Bill is silent on the origin and ownership aspect of a registered variety of seed”….. “In the absence of such a provision, established seed companies could use farmer varieties in breeding the new species without paying anything to them or to the Government.” The seed companies still go scot free even if they use farmer varieties or varieties developed in government institutions.
15. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 14, no seed of any transgenic variety shall be registered unless the applicant has obtained clearance in respect of the same as required by or under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986:             Provided that the Registration Sub-Committee may, subject to clearance under the said Act, grant provisional registration, for a period not exceeding two years on the basis of information furnished by the producer on the results of multi-locational trials in the prescribed manner.	The Committee is of a strong view that the provisional registration of transgenic varieties would bring the untested seeds and genetically engineered food crops in the market from backdoor, which may sabotage the entire bio-safety regulatory system of our country. Also, as the transgenic seeds cannot be released for commercial cultivation without the approval of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), provisional registration /clearance should not be allowed and the proviso to   Clause 15 (1) should be deleted.	15. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 14, no seed of any transgenic variety shall be registered unless the applicant has obtained a clearance in respect of the same as required by or under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: 29 of 1986.	As per the strong recommendation of the committee, the provision has been deleted.
19.   The Committee may, for conducting trials to assess performance, accredit centers of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, State Agricultural Universities and such other organizations fulfilling the eligibility requirements as may be prescribed, to conduct trials to evaluate the performance of any kind or variety of seed.	The Committee recommend that in Clause 19 the words ‘and such other organizations’ may be replaced with the words ‘and such other government/semi-government/autonomous organizations’ so as to avoid any private and trans-national seed-testing laboratory to conduct the trials to evaluate the performance of any kind or variety of seeds, as they are not directly accountable to the Government of India or any State Government.	19. The Committee may, for conducting trials to assess the performance, accredit centres of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, State Agricultural Universities and such other organizations fulfilling the eligibility requirements as may be prescribed, to conduct trials to evaluate the performance of any kind or variety of seeds.	The words ‘and such other organizations’ still remain in the amended Bill and thus continues to open spaces for private and trans-national seed testing laboratory.
20.    Where the seed of any registered kind or variety is sold   to a farmer, the producer, distributor or vendor, as the case may be, shall disclose the expected performance of such kind or variety to the farmer under given conditions, and if, such registered seed fails to provide the expected performance under such given conditions, the farmer may claim compensation from the producer, distributor or vendor under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.	The Committee strongly feel that compensation provisions should be included in the Bill itself on the lines of Section 39 (2) of the Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, through specially designated arbitration Tribunal/Compensation Committee constituted by the Government. After the words ‘compensation from the producer, dealer, distributor or vendor ’ in Clause 20 the following words may be added: ‘through a Sub-Committee especially designated for this purpose within the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or certifying agency through Arbitration or Compensation Committees or Special Tribunals/Fast Track Court/Authority established by the Government which may award the compensation within 30 days of the filing of the claim’. The Consumer Protection Act, may be amended accordingly, if needed.	20. (1) Where the seed of registered kind or variety is sold to a farmer, the producer, distributor or vendor, as the case may be, shall disclose the expected performance of such kind or variety to the farmer under given conditions, and if, such registered seed fails to provide the expected performance under such given conditions, the farmer may claim compensation from the producer, dealer, distributor or vendor as may be determined a compensation Committee. (2) The Central government may prescribe ;- (a) the composition and experience of the members of the Compensation Committee; (b) the procedure to be followed by such Compensation Committee; (c) the manner of giving compensation by such Compensation Committee to the farmer; (d) the time within which the compensation so determined shall be paid to the farmer. (3) Any compensation determined by the Compensation Committee under sub-section (1) if not paid to the concerned farmer, shall be recovered as an arrear of land revenue. (4) any farmer aggrieved from the decision of the Compensation Committee may prefer an appeal to the prescribed authority which shall dispose off the appeal within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed.	It accepts the recommendation of the Standing Committee and incorporates provision for a ‘compensation Committee’.
22.(1)   Every person who desires to carry on the business of selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, bartering, import or export or otherwise supply any seed by himself, or by any other person on his behalf  shall obtain a registration certificate as a dealer in seeds from  the State Government .	The farmers’ exchanging seeds through ‘barter system’ among themselves should be exempted from the purview of these Clauses and the word ‘bartering’ should be removed from Clause 22(1), Clause 25 & Clause 28(1).	22. (1) Every person who desires to carry on the business of selling, keeping for sale, offering to sell, import or export or otherwise supply any seed by himself, or by any other person on his behalf shall obtain a registration certificate as a dealer in seeds from the State Government.	The term ‘bartering has been deleted from all three clauses as per the recommendation of the Standing Committee.
27. (1)    The Committee may in consultation with the State Government and the State Seed Committee, accredit – (a)      organizations to carry out  certification, on the fulfillment of such criteria, as may be prescribed, or (b)     individuals or seed producing organisations to carry out self- certification, in such manner as may be prescribed.	…. the Committee recommend as under:  In Clause 27(1) (a) add ‘Government/Semi-Government’ before the words ‘Organisations to carry out certification….’	27. (1) the State government may, with the prior approval of the Central government,   accredit the organizations owned or controlled by the Central government or the State governments to carry out certification, on the fulfillment of such criteria, as may be prescribed.	The recommendation of the Standing Committee has been accepted.
30.       The Central Government may, on the recommendation of the Committee and by notification, recognise any seed certification agency established in any foreign country, for the purposes of this Act.	In Committee’s view it is dangerous to accredit any foreign seed certification agency to certify the seed to get it registered in India without conducting localised trials of that seed in our country. They, therefore, recommend that the Seed Certification Agency established in any foreign country should be recognised only if the seed   certified by it is invariably tested on Indian soil to conform to the specified minimum limits of germination, genetic and physical purity and maximum seed health.	30. The Central government may, on the recommendations of the Committee, by notification, recognize any seed certification agency established in the territory outside India, for such purposes as may be specified therein.	Laughably, the amended Bill does nothing but replace the word ‘foreign’ with ‘the territory outside India’. It has not provisioned for compulsory testing on Indian soil for certification of a seed by a foreign agency. However, we are strictly opposed to any certification by any agency situated anywhere in the world where the Indian law is not applicable or where Indian farmers have no access.
(2)        The State Government may, in consultation with the Committee, and by notification, establish one or more State Seed Testing Laboratories or declare any seed testing laboratory in the Government or non-Government sector as a State Seed Testing Laboratory where analysis of seed of any kind or variety shall be carried out under this Act in the prescribed manner.	The Committee desire that since this lab will be called ‘State Seed Testing Laboratory’ so the word ‘non-Government’ in clause 32(2) should be replaced with ‘Semi-Government’	32 (2) The State Government may, by notification, establish one or more State Seed Testing Laboratories or declare any seed testing laboratory in the Government or non-Government sector as a State Seed Testing Laboratory where analysis of seed of any kind or variety shall be carried out, under this Act, in the prescribed manner.	Recommendation of the Standing Committee has been not accepted. So analysis of seeds can still be conducted by non-government laboratories. This will open up spaces   for further abuse by seed companies.
	The Committee note that there is no audit of the performance of the Government Seed Testing Laboratories (STLs). … there should be a provision for the audit of the notified STLs to conform to the ISO standards by accredited Central Seed Testing Laboratory especially designated for the purpose.		Still no such audit mechanism has been provisioned in the amended Bill and we will left to depend on sub-standard and inefficient seed testing laboratories.
35 (3)        Where the Seed Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), he shall, as far as possible, call not less than two persons to be present at the time when such action is taken and take their signatures on a memorandum to be prepared in such form and manner as may be prescribed.	Clause 35(3) should read as under: ‘Where the Seed Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), he shall call not less than two independent persons from the same locality, to be present at the time when such action is taken and take their signatures on a memorandum to be prepared in such form and manner as may be prescribed.’	(3) Where the Seed Inspector takes any action under clause (a) of sub-section (1), he shall, as far as possible, call not less than two independent persons from the same locality to be present at the time when such action is taken and take their signatures on a memorandum to be prepared in such form and manner as may be prescribed.	The Standing Committee had reasoned that “the words ‘as far as possible’ may give a handle to the seed inspector to not to call the two independent witnesses of the same locality at the time of taking the samples of any seed”. But the words ‘as far as possible’ still stay in the amended Bill.
36. (1)  (c) All import of seeds– shall be subject to registration as may be granted on the basis of information furnished by the importer on the results of multi-locational trials for such period as may be prescribed to establish   performance.	The Committee recommend that after the words ‘on the results of multi-locational trials’ the words ‘and also localized trials in India’ should be added to Clause 36 (1) (c).	36 (1) (c) shall be subject to registration as may be granted on the basis of information furnished by the importer on the results of multi-locational trials conducted in such manner and for such period as may be prescribed to establish agronomic performance.	The Standing Committee had reasoned that “the importers’ data on multi-locational trials should not be accepted as it is, because the climatic, soil, crop management and other conditions vary from country to country and region to region and so their results may not be applicable to India as the aforesaid conditions mentioned above may not be the same here as in the trial country.” The amended Bill still does not makes it mandatory for localized trials in India for registration of imported  seed. This is a clear indicator that the government is toying the lines of the multinational seed companies.
38 (2) If any person sells any seed which does not conform to the standards of physical purity, germination or health or does not maintain any records required to be maintained under this Act or the rules made thereunder he shall, on conviction, be punishable with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees but which may extend to twenty- five thousand rupees.	The Committee feel that Rs.500 in 1966 would become more than Rs.1,00,000 in 2006 even if we calculate the interest on bank rates prevailing from time to time. It is not understood, how the penalty of only Rs.5000 in place of Rs.500 (in the 1966 Seeds Act) has been fixed in the new Seeds Bill…. This will be an encouragement to commit the offences, which may have irreparable and incalculable loss to the farmer who may use these seeds for cropping. Given that the misbranded and spurious seed trade is worth crores of rupees, the small penalties being proposed are of no use to deter the offenders. The Committee recommend that the punishment for the offences committed under the new Seeds Bill should be in consonance with the stringent penalties provided in PPV&FR Act, 2001. The Committee recommend, ‘Considering the huge losses, the person using these seeds may suffer as a result of contravention of one rule or the other by the holder of the seed registration certificate, the punishment in the Seeds Bill should be minimum of Rs.50,000 which may extend to Rs.2,00,000 along with an imprisonment which may extend to three month or with both depending on the offender involved from vendor, distributor, seed producer for the violations of the provisions of Clause 38 (1) & (2).’	38 (2) (2) If any person sells any seed which does not conform to the standards of physical purity, germination or health or does not maintain any records required to be maintained under this Act or the rules made thereunder he shall, on conviction, be punishable with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees but which may extend to thirty thousand rupees.	In place of the Standing Committee’s recommendation to increase the fine from a minimum of 50,000 rupees which may extend up to Rs. 200,000 rupees, the amended Bill raises the fine to the range of Rs 5,000 to 30,000. Besides, the   amended Bill has not made provision of imprisonment at all. Thus the level of fine and non-inclusion of imprisonment provision in the amended Bill is purely absurd mocks the penalty recommendations made by the Standing Committee.
38 (3) If any person –   (3)        If any person furnishes any false information relating to the standards of genetic purity, misbrands any seed or supplies any spurious seed or spurious transgenic variety, sells any non-registered seeds he shall, on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees or with both.	The Committee further recommend that since the person who indulges in ‘fly by night’ seed business cannot be controlled by imposing a small fine for the violation of the provisions of Clause 38 (3), the punishment for such person who furnishes any false information relating to the standards of genetic purity or misbrands any seed or supplies any spurious seed or spurious transgenic variety, the level of punishment should begin with the fine of Rs.2,00,000 which may extend up to Rs.10,00,000 along with an imprisonment for a term of three months which may extend up to one year… For repeated violations under this Clause, the punishment should be in consonance with the penalties provided in Section 73 of PPV&FR Act, 2001.	(3) If any person furnishes any false information relating to the standards of genetic purity, misbrands any seed or supply any spurious seed or spurious transgenic variety or sells any non-registered seeds he shall, on conviction be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both.	Where the Standing Committee recommended a fine not less than two lakh rupees and which can extend up to 10 lakh rupees, the amended Bill just says ‘fine which may extend to one lakh rupees’. Besides the standing Committee had recommended up to one year of imprisonment, and for repeated violation punishment as per penalties provided in Sectioin 73 of PPV&FR Act, 2001, has not been accepted.
40.(1)  Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:           Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.	The Committee note that Clause 40(1) excludes higher ups in the company if they could anyhow prove that the offence was committed without their knowledge. Therefore, the proviso to the Clause 40(1) should be deleted.	40. (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment under this Act if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.	The Standing Committee’s recommendation has not been adhered to leaving the higher ups in the company to scrape through.
	The Committee are of considered view that Clause 43 will restrict the rights of the farmers. The Committee recommend that in Clause 43(1) the word ‘grow’, should be added after the words, ‘the right of the farmer to’ and the word ‘barter’ should be added after the word ‘exchange’. the Committee recommend that the words, ‘or which does not conform to the minimum limit of germination, physical purity, genetic purity prescribed under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of section 6’ should be deleted from the Clause 43 (1) so that the rights of the farmer are saved and the provision is made consistent with the corresponding provision in the PPV&FR Act 2001.
43. (1) Nothing in this Act shall restrict the right of the farmer to save, use, exchange, share or sell his farm seeds and planting material, except that he shall not sell such seed or planting material under a brand name or which does not conform to the minimum limit of germination, physical purity, genetic purity prescribed under clause (a) or clause (b) of section 6.	The Committee recommend that in Clause   43(1) the word ‘grow’, should be added after the words, ‘the right of the farmer to’ and the word ‘barter’ should be added after the word ‘exchange’. The Committee recommend that the words, ‘or which does not conform to the minimum limit of germination, physical purity, genetic purity’ prescribed under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of   section 6’ should be deleted from Clause 43 (1).. The committee recommended that “Clause 43, which exempts the farmers from registration, should come in the beginning of the Bill and may be placed just after Clause 1 (3) so as to avoid any confusion about the registration of the farmers’ seeds.”	43. (1) Deleted entirely. However, “Provided that the farmers shall not be required to register the farmers varieties of seeds in the said register” has now been added at the end of clause 12 (1)which reads: ‘For the purposes of this Act, a register of all kinds and varieties of seed to be called the National Register of Seeds shall be kept by the Registration Sub-Committee wherein all specifications, as may be prescribed, shall be maintained’….. Further, Clause 1 (3) (b) now adds ““provided that nothing contained in this Act shall restrict the right of the farmer to grow, sow, re-sow, save, use, exchange, share, or seel his farm seeds and planting material except when he sells such seed or planting material under a brand name”.”	Suggestion of the committee has been followed. However, requirement to register if the farmer sells in a brand name still stays.
45. (1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as may appear to be necessary for removing the difficulty:        Provided that no order shall be made under this section after the expiry of two years from the date of commencement of this Act.	Some unforeseen circumstances may arise necessitating amendments even after the expiry of the period of two years after the commencement of this Act, and at that time the Government will be helpless to make any amendment due to this proviso. Therefore, the Committee recommend that: the proviso to Clause 45(1) should be deleted.	45. (1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the Central Power to Government may, by order, published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act as may appear to be necessary for removing the difficulties. Provided that no order shall be made under this section after the expiry of two years from the date of commencement of this Act.	The Clause has not been deleted.

* Bimal can be contacted at bimalpandia@gmail.com.