While Part 1 of our series on the Seed Management Bill examined what it means for farmers on the ground, the Bill’s other far-reaching consequences lie in how it redistributes power across India’s agricultural system. And perhaps the most contested shift in the Bill lies in how it restructures decision-making power.
The Seed Bill reignites debate on centralisation versus federal balance
Under the 1966 Act, states had meaningful representation on the Central Seed Committee, the apex body that guides seed policy, standards, and certification. The 2025 Bill significantly reduces this role, as only five state representatives, selected on a rotational basis from five geographical zones, will now sit on the Committee’s 27-member body.
Agricultural experts are questioning how this can work in practice. Each Indian state has its own crops, climates, soils, and farming realities. Expecting one representative to speak for multiple states risks flattening this diversity. At the same time, the role of State Seed Committees has been reduced largely to administrative functions, stripping them of the authority to reject varieties that may be unsuitable for local conditions.
This erosion of state power is further reinforced by the repeal of the Seeds Act of 1966 and the Seeds (Control) Order of 1983. Under the 1983 Order, states had the authority to intervene in seed pricing and cap royalties, powers that were actively used in the past to curb excessive pricing and monopolistic behaviour. By restricting price intervention to loosely defined “emergent situations,” the 2025 Bill treats seeds largely as a deregulated market commodity.
However, critics argue that monopolistic pricing in the seed sector is not an occasional emergency, but a structural risk, and removing routine state oversight weakens one of the few safeguards farmers have against corporate dominance.
The concern around Centralisation is not about uniform standards, but about losing local discretion, which many believe is an essential component of crop resilience and safeguarding farmers in our country.
Does the Seed Bill favour large corporations?
This centralisation becomes sharper under Section 17(8) of the Bill. Framed as an incentive for research and development, it introduces a merit-based Central Accreditation System for companies operating across multiple states.
Once accredited by the Centre, a company is deemed registered nationwide. State authorities must accept this registration immediately. Any rejection on technical, financial, or infrastructural grounds is deemed legally invalid, unless fraud or forgery can be proven.
In effect, states lose the power to assess whether a company is suitable for their local agricultural context. Critics argue that this creates a fast-track system favouring large, well-resourced corporations, while weakening local oversight. For smaller or region-specific players, the playing field becomes uneven.
Uniformity in the Seed Bill may not be a good idea for indigenous seeds
To improve transparency and quality control, the Bill mandates registration of all seed varieties in a National Register, based on multi-locational trials that assess “Value for Cultivation and Use” (VCU).
Uniform trials and national data sound sensible at first. But critics point out that VCU standards often favour uniform, high-input hybrid varieties produced by large companies. Indigenous and climate-resilient varieties, which may perform exceptionally well in specific regions but lack broad uniformity, risk being excluded.
India has already lost a large share of its traditional seed diversity. Experts worry that this system could push remaining indigenous varieties out of the formal market altogether, deepening farmer dependence on proprietary seeds.
When will we fill the cracks in our agricultural system?
There are several cracks in the Seed Management Bill, but perhaps the most serious is the size of the open door, which creates risks that India has encountered before, most notably during the Bt cotton crisis in parts of Maharashtra in the early 2000s. The Bill allows imported hybrid seeds to enter the Indian market on the basis of foreign trial data and international certification, without mandatory evaluation by Indian public institutions.
Experts warn that this could permit proprietary hybrids, including genetically modified or gene-edited seeds, to be introduced without thorough vetting for India’s diverse agro-climatic conditions. Such an approach risks weakening India’s control over its genetic resources and exposing farmers to unsuitable or poorly adapted varieties. Over time, it could further accelerate the erosion of indigenous seed diversity already under severe pressure.
For now, the Seed Management Bill, 2025, remains open for public consultation. This offers farmers, experts, and other stakeholders a crucial opportunity to scrutinize its provisions and highlight what does not work, allowing the government a chance to course-correct before the law is finalized. If the Bill is to serve Indian agriculture genuinely, these concerns must be addressed directly.
Because in the end, the question remains simple:
Who decides what you eat?
