“Good seed is half the harvest” is an old agrarian saying that captures a timeless truth: the destiny of agriculture is decided long before the plough touches the soil. In today’s India, where farming confronts climate change, market volatility, fake inputs and corporate concentration, this wisdom has returned to the centre of national debate with the proposed Seed Bill, 2025. The Union government has placed before the country a draft Seed Bill intended to replace the Seeds Act of 1966 and the Seed Control Order of 1983.
Earlier attempts to reform seed legislation – in 2004 and 2010 under the UPA, and in 2019 under the NDA ~ were withdrawn following sustained opposition from farmers’ organisations. The current Bill is thus the fourth attempt in two decades to overhaul India’s seed governance framework, reflecting both the urgency of reform and the depth of disagreement surrounding it. At its core, the proposed legislation seeks to modernise India’s seed sector by ensuring quality control, improving transparency, preventing the sale of spurious seeds, liberalising imports, encouraging research and development, and making quality seeds available to farmers at affordable prices.
By opening the seed market to foreign agencies and introducing a centralised accreditation and traceability system, the government argues that Indian agriculture will gain access to superior technologies, higher-yielding varieties, and globally competitive standards. Seed quality, after all, is the lifeline of agriculture. Studies suggest that quality seed alone contributes 15-20 per cent to total crop productivity, and when combined with efficient water and nutrient management, this impact can rise to as much as 45 per cent. In a country where agricultural growth underpins food security for over 1.4 billion people, improving the quality of seed is not a policy choice but a necessity.
One of the strongest justifications for reform is the growing menace of fake and substandard seeds. Nearly a quarter of India’s seed market is estimated to be under the control of spurious seed networks, causing enormous crop losses and pushing farmers into debt. The proposed Bill mandates compulsory registration, certification and licensing for all seeds meant for sale, import or export, covering not just grains but fruits, vegetables, spices, flowers, seedlings, tubers, grafts, and tissue culture plants. Only seeds that meet the Indian Minimum Seed Certification Standards – including germination capacity, genetic purity, physical purity and seed health – can be sold, with these details clearly displayed on labels.
A key innovation in the Bill is the introduction of a central Seed Traceability Portal. Every seed packet sold by public or private agencies, including agricultural universities and public sector undertakings, must carry a QR code generated by this portal. In theory, this will allow farmers and regulators to trace the origin of seeds and improve transparency across the supply chain. Production units, processing centres, sellers, distributors and nurseries will all have to be registered with state governments, while a National Seed Register will list all approved varieties.
The Bill also introduces the concept of “Value for Cultivation and Use” (VCU), a system already mandatory in the European Union. Before a new variety enters the market, it must demonstrate agronomic, economic, and practical benefits under real farming conditions. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research, central and state agricultural universities, and other accredited institutions will be authorised to conduct VCU evaluations – with a controversial provision allowing even foreign institutions to be recognised for this purpose. Yet, despite these stated objectives, the proposed Seed Bill has triggered widespread concern among farmers’ groups, seed activists, and sections of academia. Their primary argument is that the Bill, drafted largely in the language of the seed industry, prioritises corporate convenience over farmers’ rights.
Critics point out that while the Bill emphasises improving the “ease of doing business” for seed companies, it does not explicitly guarantee farmers’ access to seeds at fair prices, nor does it provide a simple and effective compensation mechanism for crop losses caused by poor-quality seeds. If defective seeds lead to crop failure, farmers would still have to approach courts for redress – a process that is expensive, time-consuming and impractical for small and marginal cultivators who form over 90 per cent of India’s farming population. Another major concern is price regulation. Under the existing Seed Control Order of 1983, state governments had meaningful powers under the Essential Commodities Act to regulate seed prices and intervene against excessive royalties.
The new Bill limits price control to extraordinary circumstances such as seed scarcity or abnormal price rise, and vests this authority almost entirely with the central government. This shift is seen as weakening federalism and reducing the ability of states to protect local farmers. The Bill does recognise farmers’ rights to save, use, resow, exchange and share seeds produced on their farms – a positive provision and a crucial safeguard. However, farmers are prohibited from selling seeds under a brand name. At the same time, the draft law does not prevent corporations from appropriating farmers’ varieties, branding them and selling them commercially, raising fears of biopiracy and erosion of traditional seed systems.
Equally troubling for critics is the treatment of community seed banks, women-led seed collectives, farmer producer organisations, and small local seed enterprises. The Bill largely treats them as commercial entities, forcing them to comply with the same regulatory burdens as multinational corporations. This, many argue, will gradually push indigenous, diverse, and climate-resilient seed varieties out of formal markets, favouring uniform hybrid seeds that are easier for large companies to certify and commercialise. The liberalisation of seed imports is another flashpoint.
The Bill allows foreign entities to conduct crop trials and even permits registration of imported seeds based on foreign trial or certification data, without mandatory testing under Indian agro-climatic conditions. Critics warn that this could open the door to unapproved genetically modified or gene-edited seeds, posing serious risks to biodiversity, human health, and ecological balance. Without strong domestic testing and oversight, agricultural universities and state departments may be left powerless to question the performance or environmental impact of such seeds.
There are also unresolved inconsistencies between the proposed Seed Bill and existing laws such as the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, and the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The absence of clear harmonisation raises legal ambiguities and weakens safeguards for farmers, breeders and biodiversity. From a global perspective, these anxieties are not unfounded. Over the past four decades, ownership of seed production and distribution worldwide has become highly concentrated. Today, two corporations control about 40 per cent of the global seed market, while four control nearly 62 per cent.
International agreements and trade pressures – including UPOV and amendments to the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture – have often been used to advance corporate interests, sometimes at the cost of farmers’ seed sovereignty. Supporters of the Bill counter these criticisms by arguing that fears of “corporate takeover” are exaggerated. Similar alarms were raised when genetically improved crops such as Bt cotton were introduced, yet these technologies significantly improved yields and pest resistance. India’s seed market, valued at around Rs 35,000 crore annually, is already dominated by multinational players; bringing them under a modern regulatory framework, proponents argue, will help discipline the market rather than surrender it.
They also stress that the Bill strengthens traceability, quality assurance, and consumer protection, encourages innovation, and promotes climate-resilient and location-specific varieties. In an era of climate uncertainty, supporting seeds that perform well under specific soil, rainfall and farming conditions is essential. The government maintains that the ultimate objective is to protect farmers, ensure food security and modernise Indian agriculture in line with global standards. Ultimately, the proposed Seed Bill, 2025 sits at the crossroads of two competing visions. One views seeds primarily as a technological input to be regulated, standardised and globalised for productivity and growth.
The other sees seeds as a shared heritage – a product of farmers’ knowledge, biodiversity and cultural memory – that must be protected from excessive commodification. Seeds are not merely instruments for the next harvest; they carry the imprint of history and the promise of the future. For generations, Indian farmers carefully preserved seed from each harvest for the next season, a practice that shaped resilience and diversity. Any law governing seeds must therefore rise above narrow commercial interests and balance innovation with justice, efficiency with equity, and growth with sustainability.
If the Seed Bill is to truly sow hope rather than discord, it must be refined through open dialogue, stronger safeguards for farmers, effective compensation mechanisms, robust environmental oversight, and genuine respect for India’s vast agricultural diversity. The future of Indian farming depends on it ~ because in the end, the strength of a nation’s food system lies in who controls its seeds.
(The writer is Professor, Centre for South Asian Studies, Pondicherry Central University)