In the first decision delivered by the Supreme Court under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, JSA Advocates & Solicitors (JSA) successfully defended the registration held by its client, PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited, for the potato variety FL 2027, which is used in the manufacturing of the popular “Lay’s” brand of potato chips.
The Supreme Court held that the rights of a breeder and their assignees under the Act include the right to enforce the registration held by them by instituting suits against infringement. The decision has tremendous implications for intellectual property enforcement in the area of plant varieties, particularly in the unique socioeconomic landscape of Indian agriculture.
The case arose out of a registration obtained by PepsiCo in 2016 for the FL 2027 variety of potato, which is uniquely suited for manufacturing of potato chips. In 2019, Ms. Kavitha Kuruganti, an activist seeking to act on behalf of aggrieved farmers, sought revocation of such registration on several grounds including the allegation that PepsiCo had filed infringement suits against farmers for FL 2027, and thus, violated the public interest requirement for registration under Section 34(h) of the Act.
In 2021, the quasi-judicial Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Authority appointed under the Act revoked PepsiCo’s registration on this and other grounds. After one round of litigation before the Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, in 2025, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court restored PepsiCo’s registration, holding in its favour on all grounds. Notably, the Division Bench laid down that revocation of registration under the Act could not be done except in case of ‘fundamental ineligibility’ i.e. in order for registration to be revoked, either the variety or the applicant needs to be fundamentally ineligible.
On approaching the Supreme Court by a Special Leave Petition, Ms. Kuruganti pursued a multitude of grounds, including the necessity for the Supreme Court to provide an expansive interpretation of farmers’ rights, in view of the perceived impact on India’s food sovereignty and farming ecosystem at large. It was also argued that the mere filing of suits against farmers would violate farmers’ rights under the Act over even registered varieties, since Section 39(1)(iv) opened with a non-obstante clause. Conversely, it was argued by JSA on behalf of PepsiCo that mere filing of suits did not violate the ‘fundamental ineligibility’ standard laid down by the Division Bench, and that the question of breeders’ versus farmers’ rights did not arise in the facts of the case.
By an Order dated August 05, 2026, the Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench judgment, as well as PepsiCo’s registration for the FL 2027 potato variety. It held that only the issue of ‘breeders’ rights vis-à-vis farmers’ rights’ survived for consideration. On this issue, the court held that mere filing of suits alleging infringement of PepsiCo’s statutory rights cannot be termed vexatious litigation or intimidation, so as to violate farmers’ statutory rights and public interest. Any allegation of vexatious suits would need to be raised and proved at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum. Hence, the Supreme Court has refrained from interpreting the scope and extent of farmers’ rights or any perceived conflict with breeders’ rights, which have effectively been left to be decided in individual cases.
The JSA team representing PepsiCo was led by Dheeraj Nair, Partner and included Anjali Anchayil, Partner, Vibhor Jain, Principal Associateand Simarpreet Kaur Matharoo, Associate.
Anjali specialises in commercial arbitrations, litigation and complex corporate insolvencies. She handles a wide variety of matters before the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and arbitral tribunals.