The proposed Seeds Bill, 2025 seeks to balance seed quality regulation with farmers' traditional rights. Critically examine.

Seed is the primary determinant of farm productivity, yet it is still governed by the Seeds Act, 1966 and the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. The draft Seeds Bill, 2025, released for public comment on 12 November 2025 [2], attempts to modernise quality regulation while codifying farmers' customary seed rights — a balance it achieves substantially, though not fully.

Strengths: a firmer quality-assurance regime

• Deterrence restored: the penalty ceiling rises from a token ₹500 to ₹30 lakh, with imprisonment up to three years for deliberate sale of substandard seed [1] — addressing spurious seed, a recurring cause of crop failure and rural indebtedness [2].
• Traceability: mandatory QR codes on seed packets, linked to a Centralised Seed Traceability Portal, disclose seed health, expected performance and producer certification [1][2], fixing accountability along the supply chain.
• Accountability of sellers: compulsory registration of seed companies ends unauthorised trade [1].
• Extension support: all 731 Krishi Vigyan Kendras are tasked with farmer education on seed selection and grievance redressal [1].

Safeguards for traditional rights

• Farmers retain the right to grow, sow, re-sow, save, exchange, share or sell farm-saved seed, and local seed-exchange systems continue [1][2].
• Farmers' varieties and export-only seed are exempted from mandatory registration [2].

Concerns

• Farmer organisations and civil society argue the framework suits seed companies and agribusiness more than cultivators, especially those in traditional, chemical-free farming [2].
• The bar on selling farm-saved seed under a company brand name restricts market participation [2].
• Proposed liberalisation of seed imports may pressure domestic seed enterprises [2].
• Compliance and digital-traceability costs may burden small producers; overlap with the PPV&FR Act, 2001 needs clarity.

On balance, the Bill's quality architecture is sound and long overdue, while its rights architecture is protective but narrowly drawn. Incorporating consultation feedback — cost-light compliance for smallholders, explicit harmonisation with PPV&FR — would let the law advance both seed security and farmer welfare, consistent with the doubling-farmers'-income and food-security goals of Viksit Krishi Sankalp Abhiyan [3].