High Court quashes Punjab’s blanket ban on hybrid paddy seeds

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside Punjab’s April 7 order imposing a blanket ban on the use of notified hybrid paddy seeds in the State after holding that it did not withstand the test of legality. The Bench clarified that the State could not prohibit the use of varieties duly notified by the Government of India under the Seeds Act of 1966. It, as such, upheld the administrative orders of April 4 and April 10, 2019, which had restricted only the use of non-notified hybrid seeds, while permitting the notified varieties.

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari ruled that the administrative order dated April 4, 2019, partially modified vide administrative order dated April 10, 2019, imposing prohibition only on use non-notified varieties of hybrid paddy in the State, while allowing varieties notified by the Government of India under the Seeds Act of 1966 passed the test of legality.

The Bench added that the administrative order dated April 7, prohibiting the use of notified varieties of hybrid paddy seeds in the State, did not pass the test of legality. Therefore, the impugned administrative order dated April 7 was set aside.

The judgment is significant as the farmers can continue using hybrid paddy seeds approved under the Seeds Act, while the State retains the power to bar non-notified varieties.

In his 59-page order, Justice Tiwari ruled that the State Government was not vested with any power

to impose a ban upon notified kind or variety of hybrid seeds, “which have legal force on account of Section 5 of the Act of 1966”.

The matter was placed before Justice Tiwari’s Bench following a “common challenge” to administrative orders by the Punjab Agriculture Department, which initially banned PUSA-44 and all types of hybrid paddy seeds, notified and non-notified alike. The April 10, 2019, modification, however, partially rolled back the ban by allowing notified varieties approved for Punjab.

Senior advocates Munisha Gandhi and Gurminder Singh representing the petitioners—companies

involved in the business of seeds’ production/trading or the farmers aggrieved by the blanket ban—argued that the State Government lacked statutory power to issue such sweeping orders. They contended that the subject of seeds falls in the Concurrent List of the Constitution, giving Parliament the authority to legislate.

Supporting this view, the Union of India opposed the blanket ban. In its reply filed through the Additional Solicitor-General Satya Pal Jain, the Centre submitted that the Seeds Act, 1966, did not empower any authority to restrict or allow movement of seeds, which was a matter linked to interstate trade protected under Article 301 of the Constitution. It further pointed out that the Government of India had been actively promoting hybrid seed development in rice, maize and cotton under national seed policies, including the “2002 National Seed Policy”, to enhance productivity and farmers’ incomes.