Will the seeds bill 2025 protect farmers or empower corporations?
The future of seeds at stake
Raipur | Desk: Are the country's farmers about to face another seed crisis? The Indian government's new draft Seeds Bill 2025 claims to provide better seeds, stop the menace of counterfeit seeds, and secure the future of farmers. But the question is, is this law truly for the farmers in the field, or will it prove more beneficial to large seed companies?
The Indian government's draft Seeds Bill 2025 appears to be a technical law, but in reality, it's not about seeds, but about the future of agriculture and, consequently, the fate of farmers in Chhattisgarh and across India. This new bill seeks to revamp the entire system by repealing the Seeds Act of 1966 and the Seed Control Order of 1983. The government claims this will increase the supply of good quality seeds, curb counterfeit seeds, and provide better protection to farmers. This all sounds good on paper, but from the perspective of those who farm on the ground, the picture is less straightforward.
Farmer organizations, seed experts, and several citizen groups clearly allege that this bill has been written with the needs of seed companies and large agri-business houses in mind, rather than those of ordinary farmers. Farmers, especially those who practice indigenous seeds, organic farming, toxic chemical-free farming, or natural farming, are experiencing this proposed law as a form of pressure. Seed experts say that this draft appears to speak the language of the corporate seed business, not ordinary farmers.
Considering Chhattisgarh, the concerns deepen. Indigenous rice varieties, kodo-kutki, ragi, local pulses, and vegetables these are not just crops, but a reflection of generations of memory, culture, and the wisdom of farmers, along with the local climate. In many villages, women and community groups save seeds on their own, share them among themselves, and maintain small seed banks. When the law on seeds is tightened, these traditions are the first to be targeted and this is where the debate begins about whose side this bill stands.
The central idea of the bill is that registration will be required for almost all seeds sold in the market. Only farmers' own traditional seeds and seeds intended solely for export will be exempt from this process. Before any new seed variety reaches the market, it will have to undergo a "Value for Cultivation and Use" (VCU) test, in which it will be grown in different regions to determine whether its germination capacity, purity, and performance meet the set standards.
This system sounds scientific and rigorous as if every seed is being thoroughly tested. But this raises a major question: Are these standards designed for indigenous, diverse, and local varieties that have evolved in natural balance with climate, soil, rainfall, and pests, or for the uniform hybrid varieties that large companies sell on a large scale? VCU trials often favor seeds that produce "uniform" results that is, clean, uniform, high-yielding hybrids. While indigenous varieties are often somewhat diverse varying in beauty, size, color, and ripening time they are better able to withstand drought, floods, pests, or weather. Such standardized testing will only advance seeds that "perform" according to corporate logic, not those that are essential for the farmer's field and our ecological balance.
The bill adds further regulations in the name of market control and traceability. Every seed dealer or distributor will be required to obtain a state registration certificate. Every seed packet will be required to include a QR code linked to the central government's seed traceability portal, allowing seeds to be "tracked" from farm to factory and back from factory to farm. This system can certainly make it difficult for counterfeit seeds, but another reality is that in India's villages, even in remote areas of Chhattisgarh, not every small trader has access to stable internet, nor does every farmer have a smartphone or training to handle digital systems. Will women and tribal groups who have been saving seeds in their own way for years suddenly be able to jump into the world of portals, QR codes, and online entry? Or will this entire system simply declare them "unruly" and sideline them?
Alongside this, there's another system: the Central Accreditation System. This means that if a large company obtains national accreditation, it won't have to go through separate processes in each state; one certificate, universally valid. This sounds like a "convenience," but for whom? Small farmer groups, FPOs, and women's seed collectives don't have the legal resources, staff, or capital that large corporations have. The result could be a handful of companies perched on the top floor, leaving the ladder for small farmers at the bottom crumbling.
The punishment and penalty structure is also not light; it's very heavy. Even minor or technical errors such as failing to upload information to the portal on time or selling seeds that are slightly below standard can result in fines starting at one lakh rupees. If someone is caught selling fake, falsely claimed, or unregistered seeds, a fine of up to three lakh rupees and imprisonment for up to three years hangs over them. This strictness may be necessary when the target is genuine fraud, but the fear is that the law often hits those with the most income first and hardest.
The least heard are small farmers, village seed friends, and local FPOs.
On paper, the bill also reiterates farmers' rights. It states that any farmer can grow, replant, save, exchange, share, and even sell seeds saved from their fields, provided they don't sell them under a brand name. This suggests that farmers' rights are still intact. But in reality, when every variety requires registration, VCU trials, QR codes, portal updates, and a multitude of digital paperwork, how easily will farmers and community groups be able to transact seeds in practice? Will rights remain in writing, or will they truly be realized? This is where the difference lies.
The biggest shortcoming that farmers' organizations are pointing out is compensation. The question is simple: if a farmer buys and sows registered, "standard" seeds, and their crop is destroyed due to poor seed quality, how will they get their due? The path remains the same: file a case in court, carry evidence, and endure years of adjournments. For a small farmer, already burdened by debt, weather, and market vagaries, this path is almost a dead end. The bill offers no straightforward, quick, and accessible mechanism at the village level that would say, "Yes, the seeds were faulty, the company is responsible, and the farmer will receive immediate compensation."
The situation of community seed preservers is even more complicated. FPOs, women's seed groups, and traditional seed preservation networks these are currently the invisible backbone of Indian agriculture, keeping indigenous varieties alive. The draft bill treats them as commercial entities and subjects them to the same licensing, registration, and digital compliance requirements as large companies. On the one hand, this could divert the energy of these groups into paperwork, while on the other, it would make it easier for corporate and foreign companies to access India's biodiversity and indigenous seed germplasm. Seed experts point to this as a threat of biopiracy, fearing that generations of our earnings, knowledge, and seed capital could slowly slip away through legal channels.
The bill also appears to open a door for foreign seeds and genetic engineering. The provision to accredit foreign institutions for VCU testing is troubling critics. The fear is that if the entry of genetically modified or gene edited seeds is based on foreign data and test reports, and our own oversight is weakened, the impact could be felt at every level human health, soil, water, and biodiversity. The most direct impact will be on small farmers, who will be forced to purchase new seeds every season, losing both self-sufficiency and control over their seeds.
India is already experiencing a painful history of farmer suicides. Experts' warnings are not exaggerated: if seed and farming policies continue to marginalize farmers, this crisis could deepen. As farmers' control over seeds, soil, water, and markets diminishes, farming will gradually become a risk, not a source of employment.
In such a situation, the question isn't simply whether the Draft Seeds Bill, 2025, is technically sound. The real question is: who does this bill favor the farmer who wants to live with the freedom to save seeds, or the corporate model where seed is the product, the farmer is the customer, and the farm is the market? Whether in Chhattisgarh or the rest of the country, farmers, their organizations, seed conservation groups, and civil society must understand the nuances of this bill and raise their voices forcefully.
If a law is to be enacted, it should be one that shields the power of indigenous seeds, community seed systems, and the rights of small farmers, rather than gradually eroding them. Seeds are not just grains; they are the root of our food security, the memory of our culture, and the future assurance of future generations. The true test of any law will be on this criterion.
