The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) has released a statement raising ten questions to Union Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan regarding the proposed Seed Bill 2025, alleging that the legislation is biased in favour of large multinational and domestic seed corporations and does not adequately safeguard farmers’ interests.
In its press release, SKM questioned the Minister’s assertion that the Seed Bill 2025 protects farmers and Indian agriculture, stating that farmers across several states are protesting against what they describe as the Bill’s corporate tilt. The organisation asked why the government proceeded with the legislation when agriculture is a state subject under the Constitution, and alleged that states were not adequately consulted. It also expressed concern over the proposed creation of a Central Seed Committee with powers over seed production, testing, and regulation, claiming that it lacks representation from all states.
The farmers’ body said the Bill does not explicitly guarantee the supply of good quality seeds on time and at affordable prices, which it argued should be a primary provision in any farmer-oriented seed legislation. SKM further contended that the Bill undermines provisions of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPVFR) Act by placing small traditional seed producers on par with corporate seed companies in terms of registration requirements. According to the organisation, farmers currently have the legal right to produce, preserve, exchange and transfer seeds among themselves, and any additional compliance burden could adversely affect these rights.
The statement also raised concerns about provisions that would allow foreign-tested seeds, including genetically modified (GM) seeds, to enter the Indian market. Citing India’s 15 agro-climatic zones and diverse soil and monsoon conditions, SKM argued that such seeds could pose risks to local varieties and “seed sovereignty,” defined as farmers’ control over genetic resources. It questioned why there is no explicit ban on GM seeds in the absence of what it described as a national consensus.
SKM further alleged that the Bill permits multinational corporations to expand their presence in Indian agriculture while weakening existing regulatory safeguards. It questioned whether the proposed law would dilute earlier restrictions under the Seeds Act of 1966 and the Seeds Rules of 1983, including provisions relating to imports and action against black marketing. The organisation called for mandatory independent testing and approval of imported seeds, plant varieties and saplings by Indian laboratories.
The press release also highlighted concerns about seed pricing, stating that vegetable and hybrid seeds are increasingly unaffordable for small farmers and that the Bill does not contain provisions to regulate prices or periodically determine fair rates. It criticised what it described as a lack of support for public research institutions such as the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), as well as farmers’ cooperatives and seed villages, alleging that the Bill favours large companies under an “ease of doing business” framework.
On the issue of compensation, SKM said the proposed legislation does not mandate accessible compensation for farmers in cases of crop failure due to spurious seeds, nor does it provide for recovery of lost profits, cultivation expenses, or fresh seed costs. It also objected to provisions that reportedly limit the filing of complaints to seed inspectors rather than allowing farmers to directly register complaints in cases of crop loss.
Additionally, the organisation questioned the requirement for QR codes on seed packets, arguing that many small producers lack reliable internet access and may face practical difficulties in complying with digital mandates.
Concluding the statement, SKM said that unless satisfactory answers are provided to the concerns raised, farmers across the country would demand that the government refrain from enacting the Seed Bill 2025 in Parliament. The organisation described the Bill as a threat to India’s agricultural sovereignty and farmers’ rights.
Comments