Protection Of Plant Varieties And Farmers' Rights Act 2001:

In 2001, India introduced a special legislation titled Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act (Act No.53 of 2001). [1]This Act has come to be known by various names like Plant Varieties Act and PPV&FR. This Act of 2001 was enacted in pursuance of active fulfillment of provisions under the agreement at the international platform that India is a signatory to since its inception i.e. the TRIPS Agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, 1995).[2]

India incorporated this legislation as it felt the need to do the same while drawing inspiration for drafting the act from the international system of International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (or UPOV) [3]in addition to actively complying with Article 27(3)(b) of TRIPS (1995):

(b) plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes. However, Members shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof.The provisions of this subparagraph shall be reviewed four years after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement.[4]

Objectives:
India tread the path shone light on by the TRIPS Agreement via the abovementioned provision and to suit its own needs, India chose the latter option of the two stated vide Article 27(3)(b). This marked the origination of the Plant Varieties Act of 2001 in India. Under the act, a mandatory and statutory authority has also been formed entitled Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Authority by the virtue of Section 3of the present Act. [5]

This Authority runs under the wings of the Government of India's Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare. [6] The Authority shall act as the principal agent in regulation, registration and the like functions in order to accomplish the objectives set by the Act of 2001 – those objectives are:

• Establishing an efficacious sui generis system (i.e. unique or one of a kind)to cater to the Indian needs on the present subject-matter of plant varieties;
• Investment generation for research and development of newer varieties;
• Aiming for assurance of high quality seeds as well as encourage the growth and development of seed industry in India;
• Acknowledging and conferring rights of the contributors (for e.g. farmers, etc. under the Act).

Significant Features Of The Act:

India's Plant Varieties Act of 2001 is an elaborate piece of legislation offering a comprehensive set of provisions to deal with this area of intellectual property rights. On analysis, some of the key features of the Actsurfaced to be:

1. It is a lengthy act comprising of 97 sections arranged in 11 chapters.
    
2. The Act aims to cover everything precisely from the rudimentary terminologies to understand the sphere of plant varieties to the process of registration and implementation of the act. The act lays down the rights conferred on all stakeholders in this subject-matter as well as with some other important concepts and their interface thereto.
    
3. The Act extends to the entire India.[7]
    
4. The definition clause of the Act lays down 27 definitions that form the foundation of the Act, these definitions are of – 'variety' (i.e. barring the micro-organism, any grouping of plant in its lowest rank), 'extant variety' (i.e. existing variety), 'farmer', 'register', 'seed', 'gene fund', etc.[8]
    
5. National Gene Fund formed in compliance with the act is under the definition of 'gene fund'. The main feature of this fund lies in its benefit-sharing system i.e. accepted from the breeder when he accrues profit from any registered variety; this fund is capable of accepting contributions from various sources (be it national or international), it also acts as the fund that supports the expenditures of the schemes of authority, accepts deposits of compensations and even the fees by breeders to the authority [9]– ergo, the gene fund acts as a treasurer of the Authority appointed by the Central Government.
    
6. The Central Government post using the power bestowed upon it under the Act has established the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Authority(hereinafter, 'the authority').[10]The Authority is cardinal to the execution of the intention of this legislation as the Authority is central to the regulation and all processes under the Act. Chairperson and 15 (ex-officio and non ex-officio) members form the composition of this Authority.
   
   The Chairperson acts as the CEO of the Authority [11]and the nature allotted to the authority is that of a 'body corporate'(i.e. it includes inter alia right to sue or be sued, perpetual succession). Branches of the Authority may be established at other places in India after permission is sought with appointment of Registrars for such other branches – however, the head office is situated at New Delhi with Authority, branches of authority and such other registrars working under the direct superintendence of the Registrar-General of the Head Office.
   
   The Authority has appointment power of Standing committee and such other necessary committees along with certain functions like – registration, documentation, cataloguing different categories of varieties, compulsory licensing, collecting statistics, publication in the PVJI, and Register maintenance. [12]Authority and Registrars also have broad powers akin to civil court and has power to make reasonable orders to the costs. Orders of the Authority and the Registrar shall have the status of decree of civil court while execution.[13]
    
7. This Act is a complete code and thus, it has its own provision (vide Section 54) for a Plant Varieties Protection Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter 'the Tribunal') as well. Further, Section 55 of the Act lays down the provision for the composition of the tribunal as a Chairman (who necessarily needs to be a Judicial Member) and Central Government shall suggest the allotment of Judicial Members and Technical Members as needed. Tribunal has been given power over its own and its Benches' procedure's regulation[14], their order shall be equivalent to the decree of a Civil Court.[15]The Appeal provision is laid down in Section 56of the Act.
    
8. The Act also lays down provisions for suit of infringement i.e. it would lie in the District Court of the cause of action (COA) jurisdiction (Section 65). Relief sought can vary from injunctions to damages to even profit sharing (Section 66). Further, Section 67provides for the appointment of scientific advisor only when the court deems it necessary. Thereafter, offences and penalties are also chalked out in the same Chapter of the Act (i.e. Chapter X).
    
9. This Act comes bearing advantages such as:
   
   • Assists the breeders and farmers to capitalize on their efforts of introducing a new variety as well as gives them and their interests a legal backing;
   • Boosts courage and instills motivation on growth, research and development as profits act as an incentive to keep developing;
   • Significant for healthy promotion of the agricultural research in India;[16]
   • Helps in living upto the objectives of the Act;
   • Developed a system of the combined nature of legal, technical and administrative to holistically tackle the plant varieties and rights thereof.

Registration Process:

• Registration Criteria
  Before a plant variety can be eligible to be registered under the provisions of the act, there are certain criteria which are to be met by the variety in order to be protected by the protected. Therefore, the act provides for certain pre-requisites which are to be met, and are stated under Section 15of the act. The section states that for every variety to be registered, it must be novel, distinct, uniformandstable [the DUS Test]. Further to create less ambiguity while interpreting these terms, it even provides for the meanings of the above stated terms, it defines them as:
  
  • Novel: as defined under Section 15(3)(a)] if prior to the date of filing of the application it has not been sold or disposed, earlier than a year in India, when it came to countries beyond the borders of India, it was set to four years, however it was set to six years in the case of trees and vines prior to the filing of such application before the authority.
  • Distinct: as defined under Section 15(3)(b)] if it can be distinguished on the basis of one basic characteristic from any other variety
  • Uniform: as defined under Section 15(3)(c)] as it being uniform in its basic characteristics even after being subjected to variation.
  • Stable: as defined under Section 15(3)(d)] as the main characteristics of the variety remaining the same after every propagation or at the end of a cycle of propagation.
     
• Term of Protection
  Post the issuance of certificate of registration – the rights are granted on such registered variety to the applicant but such rights are limited to a certain limited term of protection. The calculation of this term starts from the very date of the registration.
  
  • Initial Term of Protection:
    
    1. Trees and vines: 9 years
    2. Any other crops: 6 years
        
  • This abovementioned Initial Term of Protection is subject to renewal process on payment of fees thus, the Total Term of Protection is:
    
    1. Trees and vines: 18 years
    2. Extant Varieties: 15 years
    3. Any other cases: 15 years[17]
        
• Exclusions
  While the act provides for the means as well as process through which varieties can be registered thereby protecting the intellectual property of an applicant, it also contains certain exceptional cases where certain varieties cannot be registered under the provisions of the act. This is stated under Section 29of the act which talks about the exclusion of varieties in certain cases. It states that no variety shall be registered in instances where the registration of such a variety or its commercialization could lead to harm to public order, morality or the lives of human beings and animals as well as plant life or the environment.[18]In addition to this, if any such variety involving technology can cause harm to human beings, animals or plants, it shall not be registered under the provisions of the act.[19]

Rights Conferred Under The Act:

The act within it grants several rights which are available to farmers, breeders, researchers as well as communities as a whole, which further enhances the scope of the legislation. Some of the rights that are granted by the act are:

• Farmers' Rights
  Chapter VIunder the act pertains to the rights of the farmers. It provides for essentially 3 basic rights which are guaranteed to the farmers under the act[20], these are:
  
  • One of the most important ones being the right to register a variety themselves, putting them on par with any individual or organization that could do the same.
  • It further states that rewards shall be awarded to those farmers dealing with the conservation of genetic resources as well as the preservation of such plants.
  • Additionally, as a matter of their right, farmers shall be permitted to save, use, resow, exchange, share or sell any seed even if it may be protected by the act as well as they were permitted to do so prior to the commencement of the act.
  • Farmers even have a right to obtain compensation from breeders if the variety sold to them does not perform or give the result as was claimed by the breeder at the time of the sale.
     
• Breeder's Rights
  As per Section 28of the act, there are certain rights which are granted exclusively to the breeder or even to his successor as well, these are:
  
  • The Production of the seeds and propagating material.[21]
  • The selling off of the seeds and propagating material.[22]
  • The marketing as well as the distribution of the seeds and propagating material.[23]
  • The Export and import of the seeds and propagating material.[24]
  • In addition to these rights, a breeder may further authorize any other individual with the same rights as stated above.[25]
     
• Researcher's Rights
  The rights which are available to any researcher as per the provisions of the act are:
  
  • Conducting experiments from any variety registered under the act.[26]
  • For using an already registered variety in order to create other varieties.[27]
     
• Rights available to Communities
  Chapter VI of the act, while talking about the rights of farmers also gives rights to communities and villages as a whole, as those who contribute towards the discovery of evolution of a variety must be acknowledged and duly compensated. Therefore, under Section 41the act gives the power to any individual or individuals or governmental organization or NGO to make a claim on the behalf of a village or community for their contribution made in the evolution of a variety or may make a claim in order to split the benefits arising from the discovery of such a variety.

Gist Of Compulsory Licensing:

The legislature while deliberating upon the provisions of the act realized the importance of the need of a comprehensive act to safeguard not only the rights of the farmers, breeders and organizations, but the interests of the public at large as well. Therefore, the concept of Compulsory Licence was introduced within the provisions of the act.[28]This provision is an example of the act putting the needs and the interests of the general public over the needs of the license holder. Under Chapter VII, the act grants the Authority established under the act to grand a compulsory licence, however only in certain circumstances.[29]

Section 47can be said to be the main source of this right which is in an essence granted to the general public, as it permits any individual to approach the authority. In addition to this there are 3 grounds which must be met by the complainant, these are:

1. Lapse of three years from the date on which the certificate on the registration of the variety was issued;
2. Reasonable Requirements of the public for either the seed or any other propagating material relating to the seed has not been satisfied;
3. The seed or the propagating material, even though available to the public, is not so at a reasonable price.

Only after the satisfaction of all these requirements can the authority grant a compulsory licence. Subsequent to the grant of the compulsory licence, the one to whom such a licence has been granted shall as per the provision of the act have the right to produce, distribute as well as sell the seed or any other propagating material associated to that specific variety.

Section 48 additionally pertains to the instance when the demands of the public have not been satisfied. This is crucial as it provides for a basic criterion that the authority must take into consideration in order to determine whether the reasonable requirements of the public were met or not. In doing so under sub section (i) it talks about the liability of the certificate holder and under sub section (ii) it talks about the capacity of the applicant itself.

Section 51further talks about the essential terms which must be met within the compulsory licence which is to be granted by the authority. It states that the breeder must be compensated reasonably and all factors pertaining to the variety must be taken into account as well as states that proper provisions must be made in order to provide specifically to the farmers, access to the seed as well as any other propagating material which is associated with the variety.

In addition to this the chapter contains several other powers granted to the authority such as adjourning the application put before it for granting the compulsory licence[30], determining the duration for which the said licence is to be granted for[31], as well as for the modification[32]and revocation of the licence.[33]

India's Dilemma Vis-À-Vis The International System (Upov):

Introduction To Upov:

With the aims of establishing an International Organization for the protection of new varieties of plants, The International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants also known as the UPOV was established in the year 1961 through the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, and is located in Geneva, Switzerland.[34]Currently there are a total of 76 members to the UPOV, the newest member being the United Republic of Tanzania, in the year 2015.[35]

The UPOV as an organization consists of several independent bodies as well such as the Council, Administrative and Legal Committee, Technical Committee, and various other committees as well[36]. The very mission statement of the organization provides for the motive behind its establishment aiming,

To provide and promote an effective system of plant variety protection, with the aim of encouraging the development of new varieties of plants, for the benefit of society.[37]

The UPOV Convention aims to provide to breeders the access to intellectual property rights. Since the methods adopted by them are unique, the convention encourages the intellectual property right of the breeders and terms it as the Plant Breeders Right, thereby protecting the new variety of plant which has been produced.

The various articles of the convention provide for several aspects of intellectual property rights such as the conditions for the protection that are required to be met by breeders[38], various rights of the breeder[39], Instances of exception[40], cancellation of the rights of a breeder[41]and several other rights and liabilities of Breeders, Member States as well as the Union.

When we talk of India in the scenario of protection of plan varieties, India enacted The Protection of Plant varieties and Farmer's Rights Act in the year 2001. Even though it has been a signatory of the TRIPS Agreement it has exercised its right to exclude plants, animals and other organisms from patentability.[42]Furthermore, even though the government was in favor of becoming a member of UPOV it faced a lot of criticism as doing so would not only curtail the rights of the farmers granted to them under the Act of 2001, it was also regarded as a contradictory move against the very act which was enacted by it. Another major factor which added towards the dissent was the fact that there was only one other developing country i.e. Trinidad which had become a member to the agreement, all other developing countries had refused to do so.[43]Therefore till this date, India has not become a member of the UPOV.

Similarities:
Despite not being a member to the UPOV, the Indian Government aimed at achieving international standards in regard to the protection of plant varieties, therefore there are several similarities between the International Convention and the Act enacted by the Government of India.

Some of these similarities are:

• Definition Clause:
  A major similarity which is visible in the very first part of the International Convention and the India's act of 2001 is the definition of the term variety, defined under Article 1(vi) and Section 2(za) respectively.
   
• Establishment of Authority:
  The Convention under Article 30(1)(ii) and India's act of 2001 under Section 3(1) call for the establishment of an authority for the purposes of overseeing the enforcement of the provisions stated in the convention as well as the act.
   
• Prerequisite conditions to be met:
  There are certain conditions required for the plant varieties protection rights to be granted which have been stated in the International Convention in Article 5(1) as well as the PPV&FR Act under Section 15(1), these are – Novelty, Distinctiveness, Uniformity and Stability.

From these similarities we see that the core fundamentals of both the Convention as well as the PPV&FR Act are essentially the same as both focus on the protection of plant varieties.

Differences:
When we talk about the differences of the act, the differences are not contradictory in nature, but the differences refer to the different scope as well as regulations mentioned in the act. Some of these differences are:

• In the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants:
  The convention was established as a means to unify Intellectual Property Law when it comes to plants. Even though TRIPS was an already existing convention, the scope of this convention was limited to new varieties in Plants. Therefore, it focuses more on the international aspect generally and provides for several provisions for the terms of the Implementation of the convention[44], its Ratification[45], Organs of the Union[46], Obligations of Parties[47], etc.
   
• In the Protection of Plant Variety and Farmer's Rights Act, 2001 – Even though India did not become a signatory to the International Convention it still within the act recognizes its existence as it mentions as well as defines the term Convention Country while referring to countries that are signatories to other international conventions for the protection of plant varieties.
   
• In addition to this the act is a very comprehensive and detailed one, covering all aspects of Plant Varieties as well as their protection through its various provisions, some of these are:
  
  • Provisions for Offences as well as penalties in many different instances [48]
  • Provisions for the establishment of an appellate tribunal [49]
  • Establishment of the Gene Fund [50]

These were some of the differentiating factors between the International Convention and The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer's Rights Act, 2001.

Recent Developments:
In recent years there have been a few developments when it comes to the PPV&FR. In certain cases, these have been done directly through motions to amend the act or indirectly through the enactment of other acts. Some of these are:

• The Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds v. Union of India[51], a significant case decided in January 2015 is one recent example of the Judiciary enforcing the provisions of the PPV&FR Act, 2001. Prior to adjudicating upon the facts of the case and passing a judgment for the same, the court emphasized on the need of the implementation of the provisions of the act and stated that despite there being provisions under Chapter VIII of the act for the establishing of an Appellate Tribunal, the same had not been established even after a lapse of six years after the implementation of the act. Furthermore, the court emphasized on the need of such a tribunal due to the technical nature and knowledge necessary while adjudicating disputes under the act.
  
  The facts of the case were such that the petitioner for the registration of a variety of cotton, filed an application which was then published under the Plant Variety Journal as per the provisions of the act. In furtherance of which the respondent filed an application opposing such a registration under the act, however they did so after the lapse of 3 months, which is the permissible time limit for filing such application. The registrar accepted such a delayed application and therefore the validity of the registrar to condone such a delayin filing the opposition was challenged before the court.
  
  While adjudicating upon the issues put forth by the appellant, the court delved into the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Rulesas well as Section 21(2)of the PPV&FR Act itself. While pertaining to the Rules mentioned under the PPV&FR Rules the court lay emphasis to Rule 32 and Rule 33 of the act, and held that even though Rule 33(6) provides the right to the registrar to condone a delay, it does so only in regard to the submission of the evidence.
  
  Whereas, Rule 32 provides that there must be compliance with the provisions of the act in terms of time stipulated for the filing of oppositions etc. The court in this regard ruled that the power granted under Section 33 of the rules cannot be imported into Section 32 of the rules as they are two separate and distinct provisions. With respect to Section 21(2) which provides for a limit of three months can be extendedby the registrar as the act does not provide for the imposition of sanctions in case of non-compliance of the stated time period.
   
• In the year 2019, there was an attempt to amend the PPV&FR Act by the Government of India. The amendment was proposed under Section 24(6) which talks about the time period for which the registration in case of trees and vines is 18 years and in the case of other crops it has been set to 15 years, the amendment proposed by the government was to extend this time period under Section 24(6) to 20 and 25 years respectively in order to be on the same level as the protection guaranteed under the UPOV.
  
  The said act was heavily criticized due to the fact that it was an attempt to unify the existing laws with that of the UPOV even though India was not a member of the UPOV and therefore has no obligation to be compliant with its provisions.
   
• Additionally, the Government of India even finalized an initial draft of a Seed Bill of 2019and it is stated to aim to provide for regulating the quality of seeds for sale, import and export. A major reason due to which this legislation faced a huge backlash is primarily due to its provisions which essentially take away the rights of the farmer as the whole legislation in a way encourages exploitation by corporations.
  
  The Bill of 2019 includes an amended definition for the term farmer and in doing so it created wider scope for the term permitting corporations and companies to fall under the scope of the term farmer. Additionally, earlier, where the bill defended the rights of farmers under Section 43 of the Bill of 2004, the Bill of 2019 under Section 47 permits the central government to exempt any organization from the provisions of the act.
   
• Another recent development in the sphere of the PPV&FR act was when the landmark case of PepsiCo vs. Bipin Patel & Ors. of 2019 (famously known as the case of Pepisco vs. Gujarat Farmers). PepsiCo agreed to withdraw the cases it had filed against farmers. In the year 2011 PepsiCo filed a case against 11 farmers for illegally growing and selling a variety of potato namely FL-2027 which had been earlier patented by the company.
  
  The allegations made by the Company were that it had a patent over the said variety of potato's till 2031, and the growing of these potato's by the farmers was infringing upon their intellectual property right. It was later found that the company even had an agreement with some of these farmers agreeing to buy potato's over a certain prescribed size as well.
  
  Subsequently an order passed by the court created a huge uproar as it put a stop to the growing of such patented potato's by these farmers. This showed the inclination of the Judiciary towards protecting the rights of big corporations and was seen as a major source of concern for the poor farmers.
  
  The PPV&FR act under Section 39(1)(iv) states that a farmer shall be deemed to be entitled to save, use, sow resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act. [52]Later in 2019, after deliberation with the Government, PepsiCo withdrew its cases against these farmers.

Comment:
The Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right's Act of 2001 plays a crucial role in protecting the rights of the farmers and other stakeholders in India, it seems like a valuable step to upgrade our national system while synchronizing the same with system dominating the world at an international level. India being a developing country has showed alignment with the inhibitions of other developing nations in the world that has led to the developing countries to reserve themselves from becoming the signatory of UPOV as the scholarly article of TWAIL (the Third World Approach of International Law) point out the dominance of the developed or rich countries in the UPOV's International System.

The Indian legislation on this subject-matter is well-curated as it strives to strike the correct balance between the rights of the stakeholders (i.e. farmers, breeders, etc.) as well as the public interest of the society at large. It needs to protect the rights of the poor farmers and it is of utmost importance to do so as they are highly susceptible to being targeted by corporate organizations often trying to misuse the law for commercial benefits.

The PepsiCo case is just one such glaring example where farmers from all over the country came together to stand against an established corporate giant, there is a greater probability that in several scenarios this may not happen. A distinctive feature of the act is the protection offered to farmers while granting intellectual property rights to breeders.

It is these farmers that make up the backbone of India and it is imperative that the legislations of the country provide them with certain rights and protections too without any major perplexities. The Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers Right's Act (2001) can therefore be regarded as a winsome step in the right direction.

End-Notes:

1. Act No.53 of 2001.
2. World Trade Organisation (WTO), Overview: the TRIPS Agreement; available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm (last visited on September 30, 2020).
3. UPOV Website, available at: https://www.upov.int/overview/en/upov.html (last visited on October 3, 2020).
4. World Trade organisation (WTO), Part II – Standards concerning the availability, scope and use of Intellectual Property Rights, available at: https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04c_e.htm#fnt-6 (last visited on September 30, 2020).
5. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.3.
6. Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers' Rights Authority, India; available at: http://www.plantauthority.gov.in (last visited on October 1, 2020).
7. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.1.
8. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.2.
9. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.45.
10. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.3.
11. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.7.
12. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.8.
13. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.11.
14. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.58.
15. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.57.
16. V.K. Ahuja, Law Relating to Intellectual Property Rights, p.617, (Lexis Nexis, India, 3rdEdition Reprint 2020).
17. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.24.
18. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.29(1).
19. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.29(3).
20. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.39.
21. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.28(1).
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.28(2).
26. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.30(a).
27. Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). S.30(b).
28. The Protection of Plant Variety and Farmer's Rights Act, 2001 (Act No. 53 of 2001). Chapter VII.
29. The Protection of Plant Variety and Farmer's Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). Section 47
30. The Protection of Plant Variety and Farmer's Rights Act, 2001 (Act No. 53 of 2001). Section 49.
31. The Protection of Plant Variety and Farmer's Rights Act, 2001 (Act No. 53 of 2001). Section 50.
32. The Protection of Plant Variety and Farmer's Rights Act, 2001 (Act No. 53 of 2001). Section 52.
33. The Protection of Plant Variety and Farmer's Rights Act, 2001 (Act No. 53 of 2001). Section 53.
34. What is UPOV, available at: https://www.upov.int/overview/en/upov.html (last visited on October 6, 2020).
35. Members of UPOV, available at: https://www.upov.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/upov_pub_423.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2020).
36. Committees of UPOV, available at: https://www.upov.int/about/en/organigram.html (last visited on October 6, 2020).
37. Mission Statement, available at: https://www.upov.int/about/en/index.html (last visited on October 6, 2020).
38. International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, 1991. Chapter III.
39. International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, 1991. Chapter V.
40. International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, 1991. Article 15.
41. International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, 1991. Chapter VII.
42. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1995. Article 27 (3)(b).
43. Government decision to join UPOV criticized, available at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-decision-to-join-UPOV-criticised/articleshow/12203841.cms (last visited on October 7, 2020).
44. International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, 1991. Article 30.
45. International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, 1991. Article 34.
46. International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, 1991. Article 25.
47. International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, 1991. Article 2.
48. The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer's Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). Chapter X.
49. The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer's Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). Chapter VIII.
50. The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer's Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). Section 45.
51. W.P. (C) 4527/2010.
52. The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer's Rights Act, 2001 (Act No.53 of 2001). Section 39 (1) (iv).
    
    Award Winning Article Is Written By: Ms.Jahnavi Taneja  &  Mr.Abhayy Pandit
    
    

    Authentication No: DE36395837147-28-1220