As the government prepares to introduce a new Pesticide Management Bill, a dispute over data protection is intensifying within the pesticide industry. While one section of the industry is seeking five years of data protection, others argue that the measure would restrict competition in generic products and push up pesticide prices. Companies are also seeking changes to the proposed legislation, which is intended to replace the Insecticides Act, 1968, particularly its provisions on offences and penalties. The draft provides for fines of up to Rs 50 lakh and imprisonment of up to five years. The revised draft issued in January 2026 does not mention data protection.
The debate needs to be viewed against the backdrop of India's pesticide market, which is growing at an annual rate of around 5.5%. According to iMarc, the Indian pesticide market was valued at Rs 27,487 crore in 2025 and is projected to reach Rs 46,427 crore by 2034.
What Is Data Protection?
A company that invests in the data, trials and studies required to obtain regulatory approval or renewal for a product may seek exclusive rights over the use of that data for a specified period. This is known as data exclusivity or data protection. During this period, other companies cannot use the protected data without the original company's permission. In effect, competitors seeking to manufacture pesticides based on the same formulation would need written authorisation to use those regulatory data.
CropLife Seeks Five-Year Data Protection
CropLife India represents one section of the pesticide industry. It has sought five years of protection for regulatory data generated for the registration of new products in India. According to the organisation, regulatory data are protected for six years in China, Indonesia and Malaysia, and for 10 years in the United States, the European Union, Canada, Thailand, Brazil and Colombia.
CropLife argues that India currently has around 380 registered active ingredients available, compared with approximately 1,200 globally. Data protection, it says, would encourage innovation, attract investment and improve farmers' access to new pesticides. The organisation maintains that newer molecules could reduce pesticide requirements and environmental damage. This is also relevant to agricultural exports, given increasingly stringent limits on pesticide residues in markets such as the European Union.
Opposition to Data Protection
Several other industry groups, including the Crop Care Federation of India (CCFI) and the Pesticides Manufacturers and Formulators Association of India (PMFAI), oppose extending data protection beyond the 20-year patent term. They argue that the measure would delay the availability of affordable pesticides in India and weaken domestic manufacturing.
Deepak Shah, chairman of CCFI, told Rural Voice that patented products are often introduced in India after a considerable delay. If additional data protection is granted after the patent expires, he said, Indian manufacturers would have very little time to introduce generic alternatives to the market. Shah argued that Indian companies can manufacture products of comparable quality at significantly lower costs - potentially one-third or one-fourth of the price of the original products.
According to Rajesh Agrawal, vice-president of CCFI, 36 new pesticide molecules were registered in India over the past two years. This, he said, raises questions about the argument that new products are not entering the Indian market because data protection is absent. Agrawal warned that additional exclusivity could delay competition from generic products and restrict the choices available to farmers.
PMFAI has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi opposing data protection and questioning the claim that it is necessary to bring new molecules to India. The association says several ministries have examined the issue over the past 16 years. Citing a December 2021 report of a parliamentary standing committee, it argues that the 20-year patent term is sufficient to recover investments in developing new molecules. PMFAI estimates that restricting competition among generic products could increase pesticide prices by 35-50%.
S.K. Gupta, president of the North India Pesticides Manufacturers Association (NIPMA), said multinational companies were seeking data protection at the expense of farmers, who would have to pay higher prices for products.
According to Gupta, a product priced at Rs 3,000 per litre under data protection could fall to Rs 600-700 per litre once the protection expires. He warned that such a regime would not only hurt farmers but could also drive small industries out of business, leaving them with little scope to develop anything beyond conventional molecules.
Atul Mor, president of the Haryana Pesticide Manufacturers Association, raised concerns about what he described as the misuse of patents involving generic products.
Many generic products, he said, have been sold for decades. Farmers sometimes experiment by mixing two different products in the hope of achieving better results, and such combinations can occasionally prove effective. Mor alleged that some companies were now adopting a similar approach by combining two existing products, patenting the resulting formulation and selling it at four to five times the price of generic alternatives.
He further alleged that, in some cases, patent applications are filed by another party rather than the company that eventually markets the product. After the patent is granted, the company incorporates the entity into its own portfolio. In his view, this allows companies to obtain new patents without substantial innovation.
Objections to Provisions of the Pesticide Management Bill
The proposed Pesticide Management Bill provides for imprisonment of up to five years and fines of up to Rs 50 lakh in cases involving counterfeit or poor-quality products. It also stipulates that a company director, manager or other officer may be held responsible if an offence occurs with their knowledge or as a result of their negligence.
Deepak Shah of CCFI argued that the law should distinguish between companies deliberately manufacturing substandard products and those that may inadvertently fail to meet a prescribed standard.
“Some people may manufacture substandard products, but everyone should not be treated in the same way,” he said. Shah warned that the management of a legitimate company could face imprisonment if it failed to influence an investigating officer, while those actually manufacturing inferior products might escape punishment.
He also pointed out that counterfeit products are sometimes sold in packaging that closely resembles that of established brands. In some cases, the packaging looks authentic, and the fraud becomes apparent only when the packet is opened.
Gupta of NIPMA described the proposed penalties as disproportionate and one-sided. He said deliberate wrongdoing should be dealt with firmly, but inadvertent errors should be treated differently. In his view, the draft appears to presume that manufacturers are guilty even before the circumstances of a case have been established.
“Someone who has invested crores of rupees in a business would not necessarily engage in wrongdoing. Yet the system often places the entire blame on the manufacturer,” he argued.
Counterfeit Versus Substandard Products
Industry representatives stress the need to distinguish counterfeit products from substandard ones. According to Gupta, a counterfeit product is one made and sold by someone attempting to imitate another company's product. He alleged that such activities are often carried out by informal operators, dealers or distributors rather than the original manufacturers.
He also alleged that some traders obtain expired products from established companies, change the labels and sell them as genuine products. Gupta maintained that enforcement failures and collusion contribute to the persistence of such practices.
Small companies sometimes obtain licences to market products manufactured by larger companies. Gupta claimed that a large proportion of counterfeit-related cases involve these entities. Yet the Insecticides Act does not adequately address the concept of products marketed by entities other than their manufacturers.
NIPMA has urged the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC) to issue clear guidelines on this issue. Gupta argued that entities that do not manufacture a product should not be permitted to market it under the existing 'marketed by' arrangement.
Atul Mor also said the distinction between counterfeit and substandard products needed to be clearly defined. A product that imitates another company's brand and is sold as the original is counterfeit, whereas a product manufactured by a legitimate company but found to contain a lower-than-prescribed concentration of an ingredient would generally be classified as substandard. He argued that the two categories should not attract identical treatment.
Some products may also lose a small proportion of their efficacy over time. Mor said that even a 0.5% reduction in efficacy could lead to a laboratory failure, depending on the applicable standard. While opposing counterfeit products, he called for reasonable tolerances in assessing product quality.
“If I manufacture a product with 100% efficacy, but a laboratory records it at 99% and rejects it, I could face the same treatment as someone whose product has 20% lower efficacy. The two should not be placed in the same category,” he said.
Mor also argued that counterfeit products are frequently associated with the 'marketed by' arrangement, while the manufacturing company ends up bearing the consequences. He alleged that some operators involved in such activities also evade GST. According to him, discontinuing the 'marketed by' provision could substantially reduce counterfeit sales while improving GST and income-tax compliance.
Strengthening Enforcement and Sampling
A former official of the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC), based in Faridabad, identified weaknesses in the sampling process as a major factor behind the continued sale of counterfeit pesticides.
According to the former official, inspectors currently collect samples, but a large proportion subsequently pass laboratory tests. The official alleged that collusion between inspectors and those being investigated can undermine the process.
The former official proposed setting up a separate enforcement division under the Ministry of Agriculture, responsible exclusively for collecting samples. Testing and subsequent action, the official suggested, should be handled at the level of the relevant regulatory offices. Such a separation of responsibilities could strengthen both sampling and enforcement.
The official also noted that inspectors sometimes fail to pursue cases effectively because of the lengthy legal procedures involved. Farmers ultimately bear the consequences when counterfeit products remain in circulation.
Information obtained through a Right to Information (RTI) application reportedly showed that most samples are collected from large companies, while considerably fewer are taken from small manufacturers and local producers.
The former official argued that the introduction of a new law presents an opportunity for the government to make structural changes to the regulatory system. Better sampling, more balanced oversight and stronger enforcement could benefit farmers and help curb the manufacture and sale of counterfeit products.
Balancing Innovation, Competition and Farmer Interests
Amid the divisions within the industry, the central challenge is to encourage new technologies and research while ensuring that affordable alternatives remain available to farmers and domestic manufacturing remains competitive.
At the same time, effective action against substandard products, impartial sampling and regulatory accountability are essential. The new law will ultimately be judged by its ability to balance the interests of the industry with the need to provide farmers with safe, effective and affordable crop-protection products.