Spurious pesticides remain a major challenge for Indian agriculture. Evaluate the adequacy of licensing, accreditation, and penalty provisions proposed in recent pesticide management legislation.

Spurious and sub-standard pesticides inflate input costs, destroy crops and erode farmer trust, yet regulation still rests on the Insecticides Act, 1968 [3]. Successive replacement attempts — the 2008 Bill, the 2020 Bill, and the draft Pesticides Management Bill circulated for public comments till February 2026 [1] — strengthen the enforcement architecture substantially, though gaps in implementation remain.

Where the provisions are adequate

• Licensing: manufacturers, distributors and pest control operators must hold licences from state Licensing Officers, revocable for misleading applications or breach of conditions — a direct check on fly-by-night dealers [3].
• Registration: a Registration Committee clears pesticides on safety, efficacy and need, and may deny registration where maximum residue limits are unspecified under food safety standards [3].
• Accreditation: mandatory accreditation of testing laboratories standardises quality testing across states, reducing forum-shopping by errant firms [1].
• Penalties: unlicensed operation attracts imprisonment up to three years and fine up to ₹40 lakh; governments may ban a harmful pesticide for up to one year [3].
• Farmer protection: price-regulation powers, compensation provisions and exemption of household users keep enforcement proportionate [3].

Where they fall short

• Enforcement is state-executed; weak inspectorates and thin laboratory capacity blunt strong statutory penalties.
• The 2008 Bill's Standing Committee had flagged a narrow definition of pesticides and no penalty for inspector misconduct — accountability of the enforcer remains under-addressed [4].
• Alignment with the Jan Vishwas decriminalisation approach risks softening deterrence for repeat adulteration [1].
• Prolonged legislative delay — 2008 withdrawn, 2020 lapsed — means the 1968 framework still operates [3][4].

On balance, the proposed framework is legally sound but administratively under-supported. Prioritising accredited district-level testing labs, digital traceability of batches, and time-bound parliamentary passage would convert statutory intent into real protection, advancing the constitutional promise of farmer welfare and SDG-2 food security.