A Critical Analysis of PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavitha Kuruganti & Ors. (2024)

Case Name – PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavitha Kuruganti & Ors.

Citation – LPA 590/2023 & CM APPL. 42282/2023, High Court of Delhi

Court – High Court of Delhi (Division Bench)

Date of Judgment – 9 January, 2024

Coram – Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma

Abstract

This case comment critically analyses the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court delivered on 9 January 2024 in PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavitha Kuruganti & Ors. (LPA 590/2023), one of the most significant rulings in Indian plant variety protection jurisprudence. The case arose from the revocation of PepsiCo’s Certificate of Registration for the FL 2027 potato variety by the PPV&FR Authority under Section 34 of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, which had been upheld by a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court. PepsiCo challenged the revocation before the Division Bench, which reinstated the registration. The judgment traverses critical questions including the scope of Section 34’s revocation power, the distinction between ‘new’ and ‘extant’ variety categories, the evidentiary requirements for registration under Section 16(1)(c), and the relationship between a registered breeder’s enforcement rights and the farmers’ exemption under Section 39(1)(iv). The case stands as a landmark for its nuanced treatment of breeders’ rights, the limits of revocation jurisdiction, and its important observations on the public interest dimensions of plant variety protection law.

Introduction

The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (PPV&FR Act) represents India’s sui generis response to its obligations under Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement. Unlike the UPOV 1991 Convention adopted by many developed nations, the PPV&FR Act was deliberately designed to balance the rights of commercial plant breeders with the constitutionally recognised rights of farmers as conservers and developers of plant genetic resources. Central to this framework is a registration system under which breeders obtain certificates conferring exclusive rights under Section 28, and a revocation mechanism under Section 34 which permits the PPV&FR Authority to annul registrations on specified grounds.

Against this background, the litigation between PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Kavitha Kuruganti represents a multi-layered dispute. What began as a controversy over PepsiCo’s infringement suits against Gujarat farmers in 2018-2019 later withdrawn by PepsiCo evolved into a legal battle over the validity of PepsiCo’s very registration of the FL 2027 potato variety. The respondent Kavitha Kuruganti, an activist and intervenor, had successfully obtained an order of revocation from the PPV&FR Authority, which was affirmed by the Single Judge. PepsiCo’s appeal before the Division Bench, decided on 9 January 2024, raised fundamental questions about the scope of revocation jurisdiction, the categorisation of plant varieties, and the interplay between breeders’ rights and farmers’ rights under the Act.

The Division Bench judgment, authored by Justice Yashwant Varma, is a scholarly and detailed analysis of the PPV&FR Act’s architecture. While the Court ultimately reinstated PepsiCo’s registration, it also made significant observations on Section 39(1)(iv) and the public interest dimensions of plant variety protection observations that will shape the development of this area of law for years to come.

Background and Facts of the Case

PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. had applied for registration of the FL 2027 chipping potato variety on 18 February 2011 before the PPV&FR Authority, classifying it under the ‘New Variety’ category. The variety, characterised by low moisture and high solid content suitable for manufacturing Lay’s brand potato chips, was registered in PepsiCo’s favour vide Certificate of Registration bearing Acknowledgement No. REG/2011/151, with the date of registration recorded as 1 February 2016. PepsiCo operated a contract farming model in Gujarat, supplying FL 2027 seeds to partner farmers under controlled commercial arrangements.

In 2018-2019, PepsiCo filed multiple infringement suits against Gujarat farmers who had allegedly cultivated FL 2027 outside its authorised network, claiming damages of Rs. 1.05 crore per farmer. The suits were widely condemned and PepsiCo withdrew them following public outcry and ministerial intervention. However, Kavitha Kuruganti separately filed an application before the PPV&FR Authority seeking revocation of PepsiCo’s registration under Section 34 of the Act on several grounds: that PepsiCo had supplied incorrect information regarding the date of first commercial sale of FL 2027; that it had wrongly categorised FL 2027 as a ‘New Variety’ rather than an ‘Extant Variety’; that it had failed to produce requisite documentary proof of assignment of rights; and that PepsiCo’s enforcement of registration rights against farmers was contrary to public interest.

The PPV&FR Authority revoked PepsiCo’s registration on 3 December 2021. PepsiCo’s appeal to the Single Judge under Section 56 of the Act was dismissed by judgment dated 5 July 2023. PepsiCo then preferred Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 590/2023) before the Division Bench. Kavitha Kuruganti cross-appealed (LPA 644/2023) against certain findings in the Single Judge’s judgment. Both appeals were disposed of by the Division Bench judgment of 9 January 2024.

Issues Before the Court

• Whether the PPV&FR Authority’s order of revocation under Section 34 was validly passed, and whether the grounds invoked incorrect date of first sale, wrong categorisation as ‘New’ instead of ‘Extant’, and failure to provide documentary proof of assignment were sufficient to warrant revocation.
• Whether the discrepancies in PepsiCo’s registration application were ‘intentional’ or ‘fundamental’ so as to attract revocation under Section 34, or whether they were minor and remediable irregularities.
• Whether FL 2027 was correctly categorised as a ‘New Variety’ or an ‘Extant Variety’ under the PPV&FR Act, and the consequences of misclassification.
• Whether PepsiCo’s failure to comply with Section 16(1)(c) relating to documentary proof of assignment was fatal to the registration.
• Whether the enforcement of plant variety rights against farmers under Section 28 constitutes a violation of public interest, warranting revocation under Section 34(h) of the Act.
• The scope and correct interpretation of the farmers’ exemption under Section 39(1)(iv) of the PPV&FR Act.

Analysis and Reasoning of the Court

• On the Scope of Revocation Under Section 34 and Intentionality

The Division Bench emphatically held that Section 34’s revocation power cannot be exercised on grounds unconnected to the validity and protectability of the registered plant variety. The Court examined the specific grounds of revocation invoked by the Authority and found that the discrepancies relating to the date of first commercial sale and the assignment documentation were not intentional misrepresentations and were not of a character that would have prevented registration had they been known. The Court ruled that revocation is a drastic remedy and must not be deployed as a punishment for procedural irregularities that do not go to the root of the registration’s validity.

• On the ‘New Variety’ versus ‘Extant Variety’ Categorisation

The Authority had revoked registration partly on the ground that FL 2027 had been wrongly classified as a ‘New Variety’ when it should have been categorised as an ‘Extant Variety’ under the Act. The Division Bench, while agreeing with the finding that FL 2027 ought to have been treated as an ‘Extant Variety’, held that this misclassification was remediable and not fatal to registration. Significantly, the Court noted that the Registrar had in fact processed the application treating it as relating to the ‘Extant’ category, thereby curing the classification error at the administrative level. The Court declined to allow a procedural misclassification to ground revocation of a substantively valid registration.

• On Section 16(1)(c) and Documentary Proof of Assignment

Section 16(1)(c) of the PPV&FR Act requires an applicant claiming through assignment to produce documentary proof thereof. The Authority and the Single Judge had found PepsiCo’s failure to furnish such documentation fatal to the registration. The Division Bench took a more nuanced view, holding that the failure to produce assignment documentation at the application stage, absent evidence of deliberate concealment, did not vitiate the registration when the applicant’s title as assignee was not otherwise disputed. The Court emphasised that technical procedural defaults must be distinguished from substantive defects that go to the breeder’s entitlement.

• On Section 39(1)(iv) and Farmers’ Rights as Public Interest

One of the most significant aspects of the judgment is the Division Bench’s treatment of Section 39(1)(iv) and the public interest argument. The respondent had argued that PepsiCo’s suits against farmers were contrary to Section 39’s protective mandate and thus constituted a misuse of registration that warranted revocation under Section 34(h). The Court, while declining to revoke registration on this ground, made important observations affirming that Section 39(1)(iv) confers a broad and inalienable statutory right on farmers to save, use, resow, exchange, share, and sell farm produce of a registered variety. The Court indicated that any attempt to enforce breeders’ rights in derogation of this statutory exemption would be legally unsustainable, regardless of the existence of a valid registration certificate. This observation, though not part of the ratio decidendi on revocation, carries significant persuasive weight for future litigation on farmers’ rights.

Critical Evaluation

The Division Bench judgment is a carefully reasoned contribution to Indian plant variety protection law, and deserves appreciation on multiple counts. First, the Court’s insistence that revocation under Section 34 must be confined to grounds going to the validity and protectability of the registered variety reflects a sound understanding of the registration system’s purpose. Revocation is not a general remedy for all manner of procedural defaults; to hold otherwise would introduce unacceptable uncertainty into the plant variety registration ecosystem.

Second, the Court’s treatment of the ‘New’ versus ‘Extant’ classification issue is pragmatic. The distinction between new and extant varieties carries real legal consequences under the Act, particularly with respect to the novelty requirements. However, where the administrative authority has itself processed the application in conformity with the correct category, the Court rightly declined to allow a label error to override substantive compliance.

Third, and most importantly for the development of plant variety law, the Court’s observations on Section 39(1)(iv) are significant. By affirming the broad scope of the farmers’ exemption and indicating that it operates independently of the existence of a valid registration certificate, the Division Bench has strengthened the legal foundation for farmers’ rights in India. This observation addresses directly the concern that emerged from the 2019 controversy: that corporate breeders might use registered plant variety rights as weapons against subsistence farmers. The Court’s dictum suggests that such enforcement would be legally vulnerable even where registration itself is valid.

A fair criticism of the judgment, however, is its reluctance to pronounce more definitively on the public interest dimension of Section 34(h). The Court’s decision to reinstate registration without fully engaging with the question of whether aggressive enforcement against farmers could itself constitute a ground of revocation leaves this important issue open. Future courts would benefit from a clearer articulation of the relationship between breeders’ rights enforcement and public interest under the PPV&FR Act.

Conclusion

PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavitha Kuruganti (2024) is a landmark judgment in Indian plant variety protection law. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has provided authoritative guidance on the scope of revocation jurisdiction under Section 34, the treatment of classification errors and procedural defaults, and most significantly  the inviolability of the farmers’ exemption under Section 39(1)(iv). While the reinstatement of PepsiCo’s registration may be seen as a setback for those who sought to use revocation as a tool against corporate IP enforcement, the Court’s observations on Section 39 provide a robust legal shield for farmers against unwarranted infringement suits.

The judgment reaffirms three foundational principles of the PPV&FR regime: that revocation is a remedy of last resort, reserved for fundamental defects in the registration; that procedural irregularities not affecting the substantive validity of a variety’s registration should not be fatal; and that the farmers’ exemption under Section 39(1)(iv) is a non-negotiable cornerstone of the Act that operates independently of breeders’ registration rights. As India’s plant variety jurisprudence continues to evolve, the 2024 Division Bench judgment will remain an essential reference point for breeders, farmers, practitioners, and policymakers alike.

References

PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavitha Kuruganti & Ors., LPA 590/2023 & CM APPL. 42282/2023, High Court of Delhi (Division Bench), decided on 9 January 2024 (Justice Yashwant Varma & Justice Dharmesh Sharma).

PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavitha Kuruganti & Ors., CS(COMM) 1161/2018, High Court of Delhi (Single Judge), decided on 5 July 2023.

Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (Act No. 53 of 2001), Sections 2(c), 16(1)(c), 28, 34, 39(1)(iv), 56.

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), 1994, Article 27.3(b).

International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention), 1991.

International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, 2001.

Mahyco Monsanto Biotech (India) Ltd. v. Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., (2019) 3 SCC 381 (Supreme Court of India).

Intellectual Property Attorneys Association v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1912 (Delhi High Court).

Mrinalini Kochupillai, ‘The Indian PPV&FR Act: Historical and Implementation Perspectives’, Journal of World Intellectual Property, Vol. 14 (2011), pp. 317-338.

Suman Sahai, ‘PepsiCo vs Farmers: A Wake-Up Call for India’s Plant Variety Law’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 54, Issue 20 (2019).

Kavitha Kuruganti, ‘Corporate Bullying of Farmers: The PepsiCo Case and Farmers’ Rights’, ASHA-Kisan Swaraj Report (2019).

SC IP Attorneys, ‘PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavitha Kuruganti’ (Case Analysis), Sujata Chaudhri IP Attorneys, 9 February 2024, available at www.sc-ip.in.