Examine the changes proposed in the institutional architecture (Central and State Seed Committees) under the draft Seeds Bill, 2025 and their implications for cooperative federalism.

Agriculture is a State List subject (Entry 14), yet seed quality regulation is centrally legislated. The draft Seeds Bill, 2025 — released for public comments on 12 November 2025 to replace the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 [1] — redesigns this architecture, tightening quality control while raising questions of federal balance.

Changes proposed in the institutional architecture

• Recast apex body: a 27-member Central Seed Committee (CSC) advises the Centre on seed standards, registration and certification [2].
• Statutory state tier: a 15-member State Seed Committee (SSC) for each State, giving formal structure to state-level seed administration [2].
• Reduced state voice: state representation within the CSC falls from 22 members under the 1966 Act to 5 in the draft [2].
• Enforcement backbone: compulsory registration of seed companies and varieties, plus a nationwide QR-code traceability system revealing a packet's producer, dealer and seller [3].
• Farmer exemption retained: farmers may sow, save, re-sow, exchange and share their own seed; regulation bites only on branded commercial sale [4].

Implications for cooperative federalism

• Positive: uniform national standards curb spurious seeds moving across state borders; a statutory SSC and traceability data strengthen state enforcement machinery rather than bypass it [3].
• Concerns: cutting state members from 22 to 5 dilutes the voice of the very governments that implement seed certification and prosecute violations [2].
• Asymmetry of roles: standard-setting concentrates at the Centre while compliance costs and field enforcement fall on States — responsibility without proportionate representation.
• Process safeguard: the Bill remains at the pre-legislative consultation stage, with stakeholder inputs actively invited [3].

Institutional modernisation is overdue, but legitimacy depends on States being partners, not subordinates. Restoring proportionate state representation in the CSC, routing contested provisions through the Inter-State Council, and preserving the ongoing consultation with farmer organisations would let the Bill deliver seed-quality reform while honouring the constitutional spirit of cooperative federalism.