The Union government’s draft Seeds Bill 2025, now open for public comments until 11 December, arrives not a day too soon. From counterfeit packets in village markets to procurement disputes at mandis, the chain between breeder and farmer has too many weak links.
For Punjab, where seed quality, FCI norms, and groundwater stress intersect, if not collide, every season, this Bill is more than a compliance document. It is a chance to rebuild trust in the most basic input of agriculture.
How is it better than the old law?
Three design shifts from the Seeds Act of 1966 deserve unambiguous support.
First, universal registration of varieties. The 1966 Act essentially regulated only ‘notified’ kinds, leaving a grey market of truthfully labelled seeds outside meaningful oversight. The draft moves toward mandatory registration for all new varieties and a pathway for deemed registration of existing ones. If implemented with predictable timelines and transparent criteria, this closes the back door through which poor-quality seed has circulated for decades.
Second, traceability and digital oversight. The draft emphasises traceability— already feasible through platforms that assign a scannable identity to each lot from breeder to dealer. That lets a farmer verify authenticity at the counter and allows regulators to trace a bad lot swiftly up the chain. Traceability should not be a slogan; it must become a farmer’s everyday tool. Make it mandatory at scale, standardise the QR/barcode, and integrate it with e-invoices so that one scan reveals who produced, processed, stored, and sold the seed, and when.
Third, smarter penalties with measured decriminalisation. Minor technical lapses should not land honest actors in criminal court; serious fraud should. The draft’s graded penalties, with steep fines and custodial terms for spurious and unregistered seed, are a clear improvement over the token fines of the 1966 law. The promise is a system that is both business-friendly and farmer‑protective—if enforcement stays sharp.
Two related moves are consequential for Punjab. One is the shift from a state-by-state dealer licensing culture to centralised accreditation/recognition. That may cut duplication for multi-state firms, but it also risks hollowing out the “last mile” unless states retain day-to-day inspection teeth. The other is price oversight “in emergent situations”. That clause matters in the sowing window, when speculation can shut smallholders out of quality seed.
Federal design at the last mile
The August ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which held that states cannot ban centrally notified hybrid paddy, was a reminder that seed regulation sits across the Centre-state seam. Punjab has since hardened deterrence at its end, making the sale of spurious seeds a non-bailable, cognisable offence, reflecting accumulated anger in the countryside at fly-by-night operators. Industry protests aside, the message from Chandigarh is clear: the deterrent must be felt in the marketplace.
The draft national law should recognise this reality instead of flattening it. Keep national registration and central accreditation if you must—but codify concurrent enforcement powers for states: surprise sampling, seizure, prosecution, and the ability to prescribe local storage and display conditions. Delhi can set standards; inspectors in Moga and Muktsar will enforce them.
Farmers’ vantage point: performance and procurement
From a farmer’s field, regulation is judged by three blunt questions: Did the seed perform? If not, who pays? And will the crop be procured on fair terms?
The draft is strong at the pre-market gate (registration and traceability) and on deterrence. It is notably weaker on compensation when registered seed underperforms despite adoption of the recommended package of practices. Punjab’s last two seasons underlined why this gap matters: disruptive weather, discolouration and moisture contests at mandis, and a milling reluctance toward some hybrids have turned quality disputes into income shocks.
The fix is straightforward. Create a time-bound, no-fault compensation window for clear seed failures, financed by a blend of mandatory manufacturer insurance, a small cess on registrations, and state top-ups in disaster years. Publish the yield-loss formula up front; do not force a small farmer to litigate against a corporate legal team. At the same time, institutionalise pre-season coordination among the Agriculture Ministry, FCI/DFPD, and states on uniform procurement specifications, with a hybrid-specific annexure and pre-declared relaxations for flood years. Let seed standards and procurement norms talk to each other before the first bag is sold.
Let FPOs co-brand seed
Earlier seed‑bill drafts recognised a farmer’s right to save, use, exchange and sell farm‑saved seed, with one caveat: it cannot be sold under a brand name.
The intent was to block quasi‑commercial masquerading without quality assurance. But the rise of Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs) changes the calculus. The Union government wants FPOs to aggregate, process, and market produce; it funds them and extends credit and tax support for precisely that reason. If the final Seeds Act mechanically extends a “no brand” caveat to FPO‑aggregated seed, it would hobble a flagship reform.
The harmonising path is clear: permit FPO co-branding of farm-saved seed provided three conditions are met. First, lots must pass notified minimum standards in an accredited lab. Second, full traceability, including grower IDs and storage logs that must be uploaded to the national portal. Third, liability must sit with the FPO’s board for false claims, not with individual members. That keeps out fly-by-night branding while letting farmer institutions move up the value chain.
Dealer liability, without scapegoating the honest
Punjab has thousands of small input dealers who act as the farmer’s first line of advice and supply. They cannot become the system’s whipping boy for failures they did not cause.
The law should adopt a manufacturer-first liability rule on germination and genetic purity for factory-sealed packs, while giving dealers a safe harbour if they sell sealed lots, meet prescribed storage conditions, keep traceable invoices, and hand over required samples during inspections. Penal exposure should bite dealers who tamper, knowingly misbrand, or operate outside the accredited chain. That keeps deterrence where it belongs—on those who cheat—without driving legitimate retailers out of business.
Traceability as a price stabiliser, not just a cop’s tool
If the Centre retains emergency price-control powers, anchor them in transparent triggers captured by the traceability system: inventory-to-sowing-window ratios, abnormal interstate price spreads, and unusual movement patterns. Public dashboards would discipline prices before official fiat is needed, and they would help states intervene in time. Let the QR on a packet be both a shield against fraud and a signal for markets.
Water‑wise seed choices backed by procurement
For Punjab, seed policy is also water policy. Short-duration, water-efficient paddy, as well as non-paddy kharif options, must get fast-track registration and agronomy support.
But farmers will not switch varieties or crops unless procurement policy aligns. That means assured purchase pathways for water-saving options, predictable miller acceptance for hybrids, and extension support that links seed choice to groundwater outcomes. Otherwise, the rational farmer will cling to long-duration staples that mills prefer and FCI buys on familiar specs.
It is essential to stitch seed regulation to FCI procurement policy for hybrid paddy so that what farmers sow confidently in June is not rejected quibblingly in October.
Also Read: After 37 yrs in IAS, I can say UPSC exam isn’t the villain. Postings & incentives are
Minor tweaks before enactment: a Punjab‑first checklist
- Keep central registration, but write state enforcement powers into the statute.
- Clarify the liability chain: manufacturer first; dealer safe harbour for sealed, properly stored, traceable stock; strict penalties for tampering and misbranding.
- Make compensation real with a time‑bound, no‑fault window and a published formula.
- Hard‑wire coordination with FCI on uniform specs and a hybrid‑specific annexure, with pre‑declared relaxations in disaster years.
- Use traceability to improve competition and price discovery, not merely to police.
- Greenlight FPO co‑branding under standards‑plus‑traceability, with board‑level liability.
- Invest in accredited seed labs and risk‑based inspections so enforcement is fast, fair and science‑led.
The draft Seeds Bill, 2025 gets the big ideas right: universal registration, traceability, and real penalties. To work for Punjab’s farmers, it must now get the federal plumbing and farmer-facing details right. If the suggestions above are incorporated, India will finally plant what Punjab has long demanded: a pro-farmer, pro-federal seed law that deters the bad actors and rewards the good.
KBS Sidhu is a former IAS officer who retired as Special Chief Secretary, Punjab. He tweets @kbssidhu1961. Views are personal.
(Edited by Asavari Singh)
Punjab is a gone case. And it’s farmers are a national headache.
The Centre owes nothing to Punjab farmers. These idiots protested against the farm laws – universally supported by academics and researchers as beneficial for Indian agriculture and the farming community.
The Union govt must do nothing to please these farmers. They are a liability on the nation and the greater farming community.