![Infringement Suits Against Farmers Not Vexatious Per Se, Section 39(1)(iv) PPVFR Act Defence Open: Supreme Court in Kavitha Kuruganti v. PepsiCo India Holdings [2026 INSC 811]](/assets/images/article-corporate.svg)
Quick Answer: Filing suits to protect statutory plant variety rights is not, by itself, intimidatory or vexatious. The Supreme Court therefore refused to interfere with the High Court's finding that PepsiCo's infringement suits against farmers did not attract the public interest ground for revoking its FL 2027 registration under Section 34(h) of the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001. It clarified that any farmer sued by PepsiCo may claim the protection of Section 39(1)(iv) in that proceeding and prove that it applies. PepsiCo cannot be restrained from taking legal remedies if its rights are infringed.
In Kavitha Kuruganti v. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (2026 INSC 811), the Supreme Court found that the High Court had dealt with Section 39(1)(iv) of the PPVFR Act and with the public interest ground for revocation under Section 34(h) (para 5). The High Court rightly found nothing to show that the first respondent's suits against individual farmers were vexatious or a predatory tactic (para 6). A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran disposed of the Special Leave Petitions without interfering with the Division Bench's judgment. Since the petitioner was protecting farmers' interests, it clarified that any farmer may invoke Section 39(1)(iv) in proceedings brought by the first respondent (paras 7–8).
Status: Special Leave Petitions disposed of; no interference with the common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the cross-appeals; clarification issued on farmers' rights under Section 39(1)(iv) (paras 3, 7–8).
Headnote: Farmers' Rights and Revocation of Plant Variety Registration
Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 – Section 34 – Revocation of registration – Section 34(h) – Public interest – Section 39(1)(iv) – Farmers' right to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell farm produce including seed of a protected variety – Proviso barring sale of branded seed – Infringement suits against individual farmers – Whether vexatious or predatory – FL 2027 variety.
Held: (i) The High Court did deal with Section 39(1)(iv) and the allegation of public interest leading to revocation under Section 34(h), contrary to the petitioner's argument (para 5).
(ii) The allegation was raised merely on the basis of various infringement suits filed by the first respondent against individual farmers, and there was nothing to show that they were vexatious or a predatory tactic (para 6).
(iii) Filing suits to protect rights conferred by the statute cannot, per se, be held to be intimidatory or vexatious, so Section 34(h) was not attracted (para 6).
(iv) Any allegation of a vexatious suit must be raised and proved at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum, as the High Court held; the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere (para 6).
(v) Any individual farmer claiming protection under Section 39(1)(iv) is entitled to do so in any proceeding initiated by the first respondent and to prove that he comes under its cover (para 7).
(vi) The Court cannot restrain the first respondent from taking legal remedies if its rights are infringed (para 7).
(paras 5–8)
Case Details: Kavitha Kuruganti v. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (2026 INSC 811)
Final Outcome: Special Leave Petitions disposed of; no interference with the Division Bench judgment; clarification that farmers may claim Section 39(1)(iv) protection in proceedings by the first respondent; pending applications disposed of.
Case: Kavitha Kuruganti v. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 811
Case No.: Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 10320–10321 of 2024
Court: Supreme Court of India (Extraordinary Appellate Jurisdiction) – Non-Reportable
Date of Decision: 5 August 2026
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran (order; no named author)
Relevant Acts & Sections: Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 – Sections 34, 34(h), 39(1)(iv)
Impugned Order(s): Common judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the appeals filed by the petitioner and the first respondent against the learned Single Judge's decision in the first respondent's statutory appeal against the revocation order (paras 3, 8)
Counsel: Sri Colin Gonsalves, Senior Advocate, for the petitioner; Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, Senior Advocate, for the first respondent (para 1)
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website)
Key Holdings of the Supreme Court
- The controversy surviving in the case was very narrow and concerned the application of Section 39(1)(iv) of the PPVFR Act (paras 1, 4).
- The High Court had considered both Section 39(1)(iv) and the public interest ground for revocation under Section 34(h) (para 5).
- Suits filed to protect statutory rights are not per se intimidatory or vexatious, and nothing showed the first respondent's suits were a predatory tactic (para 6).
- A plea that a particular suit is vexatious must be raised and proved at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum (para 6).
- Any farmer sued by the first respondent may claim Section 39(1)(iv) protection in that proceeding and prove it (para 7).
- The first respondent cannot be restrained from pursuing legal remedies if its rights are infringed (para 7).
Brief Facts of the Case
The first respondent, PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., applied for registration under the PPVFR Act describing FL 2027 as a new variety seed, with the date of first commercial sale shown as 17.12.2009. The application was based on an Assignment Deed dated 26.09.2003 by the original breeder in favour of a company in the United States of America that is an affiliate of the first respondent (para 2).
The petitioner, canvassing the rights of individual farmers, sought revocation of the registration under Section 34 of the Act. The revocation order passed by the authority was challenged by the first respondent in a statutory appeal before the High Court (para 3).
The learned Single Judge ruled in favour of the first respondent on certain aspects and sustained the revocation order on others. Both the petitioner and the first respondent appealed, and the Division Bench decided them by a common judgment, which was challenged before the Supreme Court (paras 3, 8).
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court failed to deal with the petitioner's concern under Section 39(1)(iv) of the PPVFR Act (paras 4–5).
- Whether the first respondent's infringement suits against individual farmers attracted revocation on the public interest ground under Section 34(h) (paras 5–6).
Court's Findings and Reasoning
Narrow controversy (paras 1, 4): After hearing both sides, the Court found the surviving controversy very narrow: the application of Section 39(1)(iv). The provision deems a farmer entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce, including seed of a protected variety, as before the Act. The proviso bars him from selling branded seed of a protected variety.
High Court did consider the issue (para 5): The petitioner's senior counsel argued that this concern had not been dealt with by the High Court. The Court found, on the contrary, that the impugned order dealt with Section 39(1)(iv) and the public interest ground under Section 34(h).
No vexatious or predatory litigation shown (para 6): The allegation rested merely on various infringement suits filed against individual farmers. The High Court rightly found nothing to establish that these suits were vexatious or predatory. Filing suits to protect statutory rights is not, per se, intimidatory or vexatious, so Section 34(h) was not attracted. Any allegation of a vexatious suit must be raised and proved before the appropriate forum at the appropriate stage. The Court found "absolutely no reason to interfere".
Clarification for farmers (para 7): As the petitioner was not agitating a personal cause but protecting the interest of farmers, the Court clarified that any individual farmer claiming Section 39(1)(iv) protection may do so in any proceeding initiated by the first respondent and prove that he comes under its cover. At the same time, the Court made it clear that it cannot restrain the first respondent from taking legal remedies if its rights are infringed.
Final Outcome and Directions
- Special Leave Petitions disposed of, finding no reason to interfere with the Division Bench's judgment (para 8).
- Any individual farmer may claim protection under Section 39(1)(iv) in any proceeding initiated by the first respondent and prove that he comes under its cover (para 7).
- The first respondent is not restrained from taking legal remedies if its rights are infringed (para 7).
- Pending applications, if any, disposed of (para 9).
Legal Principle Laid Down
Filing infringement suits to protect rights conferred by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 is not, by itself, intimidatory or vexatious, and does not attract revocation of registration on the public interest ground in Section 34(h). Whether a particular suit is vexatious must be raised and proved before the appropriate forum. A farmer sued for infringement remains entitled to claim the protection of Section 39(1)(iv) in that proceeding and to prove that his use falls within it, subject to the proviso barring the sale of branded seed.
Precedents Relied Upon
- No precedents were cited or discussed in the order.
Important Paragraphs of the Judgment
Verbatim extracts from the order. For the full text, refer to the judgment PDF below.
Para 5: "On the contrary, we find from the impugned order that the High Court has dealt with Section 39(1)(iv) of the Act and the allegation of public interest leading to a revocation under Section 34(h) of the Act."
Para 6: "The High Court, according to us, rightly found that there was nothing to establish that these suits were vexatious or that they had been instituted as a predatory tactic of the first respondent."
Para 6: "Filing of suits for the protection of rights conferred under the statute, per se cannot be held to be intimidatory or vexatious."
Para 7: "... any individual farmer who claims protection under Section 39(1)(iv) of the Act, would be entitled to do so in any proceeding initiated by the first respondent and prove that they come under its cover."
Para 7: "However, we make it clear that we cannot restrain the first respondent from taking legal remedies, if their rights are infringed."
Practical Impact of the Ruling
- For farmers: A farmer sued for infringement of a registered variety can raise Section 39(1)(iv) as a defence in that suit and must prove that his use falls within it (para 7).
- For plant variety right holders: Filing infringement suits does not by itself expose a registration to revocation under Section 34(h) (para 6).
- For public interest litigants: A Section 34(h) challenge based on litigation against farmers needs proof that the suits are vexatious or predatory, not merely that they were filed (para 6).
- For trial courts: Claims that a particular suit is vexatious are to be raised and proved before the court hearing it at the appropriate stage (para 6).
- For the seed sector: The proviso to Section 39(1)(iv) still bars farmers from selling branded seed of a protected variety (para 4).
FAQs on Farmers' Rights Under the PPVFR Act
1. What did the Supreme Court hold in Kavitha Kuruganti v. PepsiCo India Holdings?
It declined to interfere with the High Court's judgment, holding that suits filed to protect statutory rights are not per se vexatious, and clarified that farmers may claim Section 39(1)(iv) protection in PepsiCo's suits (paras 6–8).
2. What does Section 39(1)(iv) of the PPVFR Act provide?
A farmer is deemed entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce, including seed of a protected variety, as before the Act, but cannot sell branded seed of a protected variety (para 4).
3. Why was Section 34(h) not attracted?
The allegation rested merely on the filing of infringement suits against farmers, and nothing showed they were vexatious or a predatory tactic (para 6).
4. Can PepsiCo be stopped from suing farmers?
No. The Court said it cannot restrain the first respondent from taking legal remedies if its rights are infringed (para 7).
5. What can a farmer sued by PepsiCo do?
Claim the protection of Section 39(1)(iv) in that proceeding and prove that he comes under its cover; any plea that the suit is vexatious must be raised and proved there (paras 6–7).
Keywords: 2026 INSC 811, Kavitha Kuruganti v. PepsiCo India Holdings, PPVFR Act 2001, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, Section 39(1)(iv), farmers' rights, Section 34(h) revocation, FL 2027 variety, plant variety registration, infringement suits against farmers, branded seed, Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court non-reportable judgment, intellectual property
Related on LegalTaxGuru
Download Judgment PDF – Kavitha Kuruganti v. PepsiCo India Holdings
Source: Supreme Court of India (official website).