Case Name: PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavitha Kuruganti

Alternative Citation: PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavitha Kuruganti, (2024) 307 DLT 352

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yashwant Varma, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dharmesh Sharma

Abstract 

This case concerns whether procedural lapses in an application for plant variety registration are sufficient grounds for revocation under the PPV&FR Act, 2001. It also looks at the balance between breeders’ rights and farmers’ rights, concluding that bona fide procedural mistakes should not invalidate an otherwise valid registration.

Introduction 

Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001 (PPV&FR Act) provides a unique legal framework to promote innovation in plant breeding and concurrently safeguard the rights of the farmers. The PepsiCo FL 2027 case is important because it deals with whether procedural defects in applying for registration of the plant variety are enough to justify revocation under Section 34 of the Act. The case also raises wider issues about the scope of the Registrar’s powers, the threshold for cancelling a valid registration, and the balance between breeders’ intellectual property rights and the statutory rights of farmers. The decision thus sets an important precedent on procedural fairness in the protection of plant varieties.

Facts 

An application for the registration of a chipping potato variety known as FL 2027 was made by the appellant on 18 February 2011 in the category of ‘new’ through the Plant Variety Authority under the Act. Registrar , after the examination of the application, put forward some queries, including one that the variety in question, being in accordance with the date of commercialization, would fall into the category of ‘extant’ and not of ‘new’.

A revised application was made by the appellant. Still, due to a bona fide error, the box was ticked in the application form showing FL 2027 as a ‘new variety’ with the date of commercialization as 17.12.2009 in India. Registration of FL 2027 was granted by the Registrar on 01.02.2016 as ‘extant variety’. Although there was no opposition to the application within the stipulated time under Section 21(2) of the Act, the respondent still filed an application under Section 34 of the Act for revocation of the registration.

The Authority accepted the application and made an order in question whereby the registration of FL 2027 was revoked under sections 34(a), (b), (c), and (h) of the Act. As a result of the revocation of registration, the appellant’s application for registration was also denied under the letter of Authority dated 11.02.2022. Aggrieved with the decision of the Authority, the appellant appealed against the order and the letter through this appeal under Section 56 of the Act.

First, the appellant contended that by reviewing the facts relating to the appellant’s registration of the FL 2027 potato variety, the Authority overstepped its powers conferred under Section 34 of the Act since the registration depends on the best judgement of the Registrar.

Core legal issue

Were procedural errors so fatal that they could lead to cancellation of registration of PepsiCo?

Arguments

PepsiCo argued that the errors which were made were not deliberate; they claimed that the errors were an honest mistake without any malicious intent, and the errors were not wholly their fault.PepsiCo argued that the Authority exceeded its powers under Section 34, and that revocation over technical errors would discourage legitimate plant breeders. 

Kavitha insisted that the errors which were made were deliberate and were against farmers’ interests.Kavitha argued that incorrect commercialisation dates were material to determining novelty and that PepsiCo’s suits against farmers showed bad faith.

Judgment

The Court held that the errors made were not so serious as to justify cancellation, since they were unintentional and did not affect the patentability or protectability of the plant variety..So the renewal application by PepsiCo will stand restored on the Registrar’s file.And also stated suing farmers does not violate the public interest.

Critical assessment

The court’s holding that registration/procedural errors are not fatal unless they are intentional is legally sensible by the court because the fact that the plant variety registration could also be done by small farmers and breeders, the PPV&FR Act is meant to encourage plant variety development. Revoking valuable registrations over technical paperwork errors would chill legitimate applicants,

The court’s finding that suing farmers does not violate public interest is the most debatable aspect of the judgment. The PPV&FR Act was specifically designed to protect farmers’ rights alongside breeders’ rights. Section 39(1)(iv) of the Act explicitly protects a farmer’s right to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell farm produce including seeds of a protected variety. When PepsiCo sued Gujarat farmers for growing FL 2027, it was effectively arguing that farmers couldn’t exercise this right. The court’s finding that this doesn’t violate public interest sits uncomfortably with the Act’s farmer-centric philosophy.

Conclusion

The judgment correctly states that a procedural or clerical error does not necessarily lead to the cancellation of a plant variety registration, particularly when the error is bona fide and does not affect the eligibility or validity of the registered variety. Such an approach is in line with the objective of the PPV&FR Act which is aimed at encouraging innovation and providing effective protection to plant breeders while ensuring legal certainty in the registration process. To deny valuable intellectual property rights because of mere technical defects would undermine the confidence of bona fide applicants and discourage future innovation.

But the court’s approach to public interest and farmers’ rights is still open to criticism. While the lawsuit filed by PepsiCo against farmers was not the central matter before the court, a more detailed discussion on the scope of Section 39 of the Act would have provided better clarity on the balance of the exclusive rights of breeders and the statutory protections available to farmers. The judgment is a welcome affirmation of procedural fairness and leaves important questions on the protection of farmers’ rights to be addressed in future cases.

References 

PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavitha Kuruganti, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 102, 307 DLT 352 , https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1430902/.

PPV&FR Authority, Judgment dated 03.12.2021, Revocation Application Relating to FL 2027, https://plantauthority.gov.in/judgement-dated-03122021-revocation-application-relating-fl-2027-kavita-kuruganti-vs-pepsico-india.

SCC Online Blog, DHC Sets Aside Single Judge’s Order Affirming Revocation of PepsiCo’s Registration for Potato Variety , https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2024/01/11/dhc-sets-aside-single-judges-order-affirming-revocation-of-pepsicos-registration-for-potato-variety-legal-news/.

Shakthi Bharathee S & Harish Kumar, Case Analysis on Kavitha Kuruganti v. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Int’l J. Interdisc. Legal Rsch. https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/CASE-ANALYSIS-ON-KAVITHA-KURUGANTI-V-PEPSICO-INDIA-HOLDINGS-PVT-LTD-DELHI-HIGH-CT-JAN-9-2024.pdf.

Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, No. 53 of 2001