Supreme Court Settles PepsiCo FL 2027 Potato Variety Dispute Under PPVFR Act, Affirms Farmers' Right to Save and Sell Farm Produce

The Supreme Court of India has disposed of the Special Leave Petitions in the long-running dispute over PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.'s registration of the FL 2027 potato variety under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 (PPVFR Act). In Kavitha Kuruganti v. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. (2026 INSC 811), decided on August 7, 2026, a Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court Division Bench's judgment while affirming that individual farmers are entitled to claim protection under Section 39(1)(iv) of the PPVFR Act in any infringement proceedings initiated against them. The ruling marks a definitive chapter in one of India's most closely watched intellectual property disputes involving agricultural rights.

---

Background: FL 2027 and the PPVFR Act

FL 2027 is a chipping potato variety developed in 1996 by a breeder employed with PepsiCo Inc. in the United States. The variety is characterised by its low moisture content, high dry matter, and stable sugar levels, making it commercially suitable for manufacturing chips and wafers. PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. applied for registration of FL 2027 under the PPVFR Act on February 18, 2011, describing it as a new variety with the date of first commercial sale indicated as December 17, 2009. The registration certificate was granted on February 1, 2016, with a validity period of six years, extendable up to fifteen years.

The PPVFR Act, enacted in 2001, occupies a unique space in Indian intellectual property law. Unlike the Patents Act, 1970, which governs patent opposition proceedings, the PPVFR Act specifically seeks to balance the rights of plant breeders with the traditional rights of farmers. Section 39(1)(iv) of the Act provides that a farmer shall be deemed entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share, or sell his farm produce, including seed of a variety protected under the Act, in the same manner as he was entitled before the Act came into force. The only restriction is that a farmer shall not be entitled to sell branded seed of a protected variety.

Journey Through the Courts

The dispute began when Kavitha Kuruganti, a farmers' rights activist, approached the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Authority (PPVFRA) seeking revocation of PepsiCo's registration under Section 34 of the PPVFR Act. On December 3, 2021, the Authority ordered the cancellation of PepsiCo's registration. The grounds included Section 34(a), which permits revocation where registration was obtained on the basis of incorrect information furnished by the applicant. Evidence indicated that PepsiCo had furnished an incorrect first date of commercialisation (December 17, 2009), when the variety had already been commercialised in Chile as early as 2002.

PepsiCo challenged the revocation before the Delhi High Court. The Single Judge, in a judgment delivered in July 2023, held in favour of PepsiCo on certain aspects but sustained the revocation order on other grounds. Both parties filed appeals before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. In January 2024, the Division Bench allowed PepsiCo's appeal and overturned significant portions of the Single Judge's order. The process of challenging such intellectual property decisions through the courts requires careful consideration of available legal remedies, including the filing of a trademark opposition where registration of similar marks is concerned, or statutory appeals under the respective IP legislation.

Supreme Court's Key Holdings

Kavitha Kuruganti then filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court challenging the Division Bench's judgment. Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves appeared for the appellant, while Senior Advocate S. Niranjan Reddy represented PepsiCo. The Court examined two central issues: first, whether PepsiCo's infringement suits against individual farmers could be characterised as intimidatory or vexatious, warranting revocation under Section 34(h) of the PPVFR Act; and second, the scope of farmers' protection under Section 39(1)(iv).

On the first issue, the Court held that the filing of suits for the protection of rights conferred under the statute cannot, per se, be held to be intimidatory or vexatious. The Court observed that the High Court had rightly found that there was nothing to establish that PepsiCo's suits were vexatious or had been instituted as a predatory tactic. If any allegation of vexatious suit exists, the same would have to be raised and proved at the appropriate stage before the appropriate forum. This observation aligns with the broader judicial principle, as seen in the Supreme Court's recent ruling distinguishing mere breach of contract from criminal cheating, that legitimate legal action in defence of statutory rights should not be conflated with abuse of process.

Farmers' Rights Under Section 39(1)(iv)

On the second and arguably more significant issue, the Court made a crucial clarification. It held that any individual farmer who claims protection under Section 39(1)(iv) of the PPVFR Act would be entitled to do so in any proceeding initiated by PepsiCo, and to prove that they come under its cover. However, the Court also made it clear that it cannot restrain PepsiCo from taking legal remedies if its rights are infringed. This balanced approach recognises the legitimacy of both the breeder's registered rights and the farmer's statutory entitlement to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, and sell farm produce.

The Court noted that the petitioner was not agitating a personal cause but was attempting to protect the interest of farmers. By affirming that Section 39(1)(iv) provides a substantive defence available to individual farmers in infringement proceedings, the Court has strengthened the protective framework that the PPVFR Act was designed to provide. Farmers facing legal action from plant breeders can raise this defence and demonstrate their entitlement. Those with grievances regarding any aspect of IP disputes may file a consumer complaint through the e-Daakhil portal where consumer interests are affected, or pursue available appellate remedies including a curative petition before the Supreme Court in exceptional circumstances.

Implications for Plant Variety Protection in India

This judgment has significant implications for the intersection of intellectual property rights and agricultural land use in India. By affirming that farmers retain the right to invoke Section 39(1)(iv) as a defence in infringement proceedings, the Court has ensured that the PPVFR Act's protective framework remains meaningful. At the same time, by declining to characterise PepsiCo's enforcement suits as inherently vexatious, the Court has preserved the enforceability of plant variety registration. The judgment underscores that the PPVFR Act envisions a balanced regime where breeders' investment in varietal development is protected, but not at the cost of traditional farming practices that predate modern intellectual property frameworks. It serves as an important precedent for future disputes involving corporate plant breeders and small-scale farmers across India.