Delhi High Court dismisses appeal by Pepsico against order revoking potato variety registration

The potato variety FL-2027 (commercial name FC-5) was registered by PepsiCo India Holdings in India and the registration was granted in February 2016 under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001. The variety is used by Pepsico to produce Lays potato chips.

The Delhi High Court on July 5, 2023 dismissed an appeal by PepsiCo India Holdings against a 2021 order by the statutory body Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority, under the aegis of the Centre’s agriculture ministry, that had revoked the registration of a potato variety by PepsiCo India Holdings.

PepsiCo India Holdings had slapped suits against several farmers in Gujarat for illegally growing, producing and selling the variety "without permission of PepsiCo India Holdings (PIH)".

While PepsiCo India Holdings (PIH) had subsequently withdrawn the suits against at least nine farmers in Aravalli and Sabarkantha, an application seeking revocation of the registration of the potato variety was filed before the statutory authority by Kavitha Kuruganti from Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), a nationwide network of more than 400 organisations, in June 2019.

One of the grounds on which the authority had revoked the registration was that the grant of certificate of registration is not in public interest following PIH’s lawsuits against the farmers.

PepsiCo India Holdings (PIH), before the Delhi High Court, had also challenged the authority’s letter dated February 11, 2022, rejecting PIH’s application for renewal of its registration for the said potato variety FL-2027 (commercial name FC-5). The variety was registered by PIH in India and the registration was granted in February 2016 under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPV&FR) Act, 2001.

One of the grounds the PIH pointed out before the Delhi high court was the locus of Kuruganti. According to PIH, Kuruganti’s application seeking revocation was not maintainable as she is not a "person interested".

Justice Navin Chawla, while dismissing PIH’s appeal, noted that PIH’s application seeking registration of the potato variety "was deficient for its failure to provide necessary documents required" under provisions of the PPV&FR Act and its rules, at the time of seeking registration, and that the authority was "justified in revoking the registration granted," going by the provisions under the Act.