Industry flags 'licence raj' concerns in draft Pesticides Management Bill

Plant protection industries say the draft Pesticides Management Bill risks fostering 'licence raj' and hampering research, citing sweeping inspector powers, price controls and unclear licensing terms

As the government initiates wider consultations on the long-delayed Pesticides Management Bill (PMB), sources said the plant protection industry has expressed deep concern over the inspector and licence regime that the draft as per them seeks to impose and fears that research into new molecules could get hampered in the absence of a strong regulatory data protection framework.

 

Why is the plant protection industry worried about the current PMB draft?

 

Sources said a section of the plant protection industry has highlighted its concerns in several discussions held over the past few months on the draft bill and its contents.

 

The PMB has been under discussion for years, going through numerous rounds of debate, including parliamentary consultations, but has yet to see the light of day.

 

Sources said that among the big-bang reforms planned for the agriculture sector, the PMB is one of them, apart from the draft Seeds Bill released for public consultation last month.

 

The industry believes PMB is needed but not in its current form and tenor.

 

“The Pesticide Management Bill represents a significant attempt to modernise India’s pesticide regulatory framework. But there are many lacunae which need to be addressed,” Kalyan Goswami, director general of the Agro Chem Federation of India, told Business Standard.

 

What provisions on pricing and licensing are prompting red flags?

 

Among the points on which the industry has raised red flags is the removal of Section 57, which mandates price regulation of plant-protection chemicals. The industry argues that prices are a matter of economics and that price regulation is misplaced in a technical statute.

 

On licensing, the industry feels the PMB in its current form grants state governments an unlimited mandate to define the powers of licensing officers, with licensing conditions being passed entirely into their hands.

 

“It may cause inconsistency, arbitrary conditions, and lack of uniformity,” the industry feels.

 

Instead, the bill should lay down clear powers and uniform licensing terms prescribed by the Centre, potentially through a central digital system for licences, renewals and amendments. It should also allow licensees to sell anywhere authorised without seeking new state-level licences. E-commerce sales, it said, could be regulated through licence verification and restricted PIN-code sales.

 

How could sampling powers lead to selective enforcement?

 

Sources said the industry also feels that Section 40(1)(d) of the PMB gives inspectors the power to take samples but does not prescribe any requirement that sampling be fair, proportionate or representative across manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers.

 

This could lead to selective sampling, avoiding some brands and enabling unfair enforcement or corruption.

 

The industry believes sampling must be equitable across all licensed entities via randomised or rotational methods, with digital records maintained for transparency. The bill should also prescribe disciplinary action for non-compliance by pesticide inspectors and analysts.

 

What enforcement gaps concern the industry?

 

The draft PMB does not outline enforcement mechanisms for dereliction of duties by inspectors or analysts, which the industry says could cause regulatory failures. It wants mandatory disciplinary action, including digital real-time reporting for inspectors and analysts.

 

It also argues that certain offences should be decriminalised for proportionate enforcement. The industry is concerned that sections like Section 35 permit bans on companies on vague grounds without scientific investigation, allowing bans of a year or more and disrupting business.

 

A section of the industry believes bans, if imposed, should be short-term—60–90 days—only on clear scientific evidence, and that trade barriers should not be grounds for bans.

 

What structural reforms does the industry want in the PMB?

 

The industry wants a national registry and central digital database for pesticide regulation, without which data remains fragmented and compliance becomes hard to track. It also wants a smooth transition from existing registrations to the new regime, allowing old registrations to remain valid until the new system is in place.

 

On registration of new molecules, industry sources said approvals should go only to genuine applicants with proper infrastructure. The Central Pesticide Board could set minimum infrastructure guidelines. The Registration Committee should include subject-matter experts in toxicology and chemistry.

 

The industry wants PMB to bar entities engaged in illegal imports or fraudulent activities from obtaining or renewing registrations, and to cancel existing certificates of registration.

 

To safeguard confidentiality, the PMB must mandate strict protection of data submitted during registration, with penalties for breaches.

 

Why is regulatory data protection a key demand?

 

To improve laboratory standards, the PMB should insist that labs be NABL accredited or GLP certified, with regular audits by certified third parties.

 

The industry also wants the registration process for new plant-protection chemicals to be time-bound, as multi-year delays harm investment and innovation.

 

“Looking at the urgent need for new pesticides to increase farm productivity, an earlier PMB draft of 2008 had recognised the necessity of regulatory data protection for five years. But in the present PMB draft, RDP is missing for some unknown reason,” Goswami of ACFI said.

 

Timeline:

 

2000-2001: The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture recommended revisions to the 1968 Insecticides Act, particularly calling for increased penalties for selling spurious pesticides.

 

2008-2009: Responding to these concerns, the Department of Agriculture introduced the first Pesticide Management Bill, 2008, in the Rajya Sabha on October 21, 2008.

 

The 2008 Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture (Chairperson: Mr. Mohan Singh), which examined it thoroughly and submitted its 46th Report in February 2009.However, the 2008 Bill was never passed and remained pending for almost a decade.

 

2017: The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare drafted a new version—the Pesticide Management Bill, 2017. This draft was released in June 2017 and circulated to concerned Ministries, States, Union Territories, and stakeholders for comments. The draft was also posted on the Department of Agriculture Cooperation and Farmers Welfare's website for public consultation.

 

2018: A stakeholders' meeting was convened to discuss improvements to the proposed Bill. Numerous recommendations and opinions were received from various stakeholders, including the agricultural industry, environmental groups, and public health experts.

 

2019: After incorporating relevant feedback, the revised Pesticide Management Bill, 2020 was sent to Central Government Ministries and Departments in December 2019 for inter-ministerial consultation.

 

February 2020: The Union Cabinet approved the Pesticide Management Bill, 2020, on February 12, 2020.

 

March 23, 2020: The Bill was introduced in the Rajya Sabha by the Minister of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Narendra Singh Tomar. Simultaneously, the 2008 Bill was formally withdrawn.

 

June 2, 2021: The Bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Food Processing for detailed examination.

 

December 2021: The Standing Committee released its 36th Report on the Pesticide Management Bill, 2020, with various observations and recommendations.

 

Current Status: As of 2025, the Bill remains under consideration and has not yet been passed into law.