Discuss the shortcomings of the Seeds Act, 1966 that necessitated a fresh legislative framework for seed regulation in India.

Seed is the primary determinant of farm productivity, yet its regulation still rests on the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 — a framework designed for a nascent, largely public-sector seed economy. Six decades later, the government has released the draft Seeds Bill, 2025 (12 November 2025) to replace both, signalling that the old law no longer meets the needs of either farmers or a modern seed industry [2].

Weak deterrence against spurious seeds

• Penalties under the 1966 regime were negligible — a maximum fine of about ₹500 — offering no deterrence against organised sale of counterfeit seed [1].
• The draft therefore raises the ceiling to ₹30 lakh, with punishment for deliberate offences, treating spurious seed as a serious economic crime rather than a minor infraction [1].

No traceability or accountability in the supply chain

• The old law had no mechanism to trace a failed seed lot back to its producer, dealer or seller, leaving cheated farmers without redress.
• The new framework mandates a QR code on every packet linked to a Centralised Seed Traceability Portal, and compulsory registration of producers, dealers, processors and certification agencies [1][2].

Regulatory gaps on farmers' rights and market entry

• Farmers' customary right to grow, save, re-sow, exchange and sell farm-saved seed lacked clear statutory articulation, creating uncertainty; the draft codifies it, barring only sale under a company brand name [2].
• Restrictive, dated provisions on seed imports and varietal entry limited farmers' access to improved material; liberalised imports are now proposed [2].

Weak last-mile awareness

• Quality regulation was never paired with farmer education; the draft leans on the network of 731 Krishi Vigyan Kendras, complementing outreach such as the Viksit Krishi Sankalp Abhiyan (launched 29 May 2025, covering 1.5 crore farmers in 700+ districts) [1][3].

The 1966 Act thus failed on deterrence, traceability, rights-clarity and awareness. Since the Bill remains a draft, the way forward lies in incorporating farmer-group concerns about corporate tilt, so that reform advances both seed quality and the constitutional promise of a dignified livelihood for cultivators.