Plant Variety & Farmer’s Rights Act, 2001 has finally done away with a long-standing requirement of producing a ‘No-Objection-Certificate’ (NOC) from the patentee of a particular GM trait that is used by a breeder while developing a new plant variety.
Plant quarantine certification helps to minimize the risk of spreading plant diseases, pest insects, weeds etc, as the volume of trade and transport increases day by day globally. Dangerous pests are frequently found in many countries. The certification from plant quarantine agency can prevent entering such dangerous pest insects, weeds etc in to the importing country. No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Plant Quarantine Department is one of the requirements for importation of some of the products.
The interplay of these right is slightly confused, the manner in which it work. GM trait, is the invention of biotechnology obtained through genetic modification. In the context of Bt cotton, bacterial thurinensis (BT) bacteria called genes are excited in the cotton genome – a certain range of toxic particles generated from this amendment are retracted which is likely to attack the cotton plant. While the properties of GM are useful in restoring pesticides, the ability to grow cotton and grow cotton is determined in the manner in which the breeders develop new plant varieties. Given the diversity of climate and soil across India, varieties of different plants will grow differently in different countries. It’s the job of breeder to keep developing new planting verities will grow differently in different part of the country.
Generally, Indian seed companies search for the progress of patent GM symptoms in their own plant varieties from owners of GM properties like Monsanto. Then they can release varieties of new plant in the market and protect them like any other new varieties they develop. It is in this context that the requirement of NOC has become a bone of contention.
In earlier report
Essenese Obhan, In the ongoing litigation against Monsanto, representing the Indian seed companies, the need to build an NOC is not supported by the text of PVPFR and is often a stumbling block for protection of new plant varieties for Indian seed companies. Block is developed. The Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta ho previously tried to intervene in the ongoing litigation beteen Monsanto & Nuziveedu without authorization from the government has opined that the requirement of NOC from the patent holder for registration of variety of a variety or hybrid containing a patent trait had no basis in the PPVFR Act.
Away the NOC is good
It is the right step in doing away with this NOC requirement, Because there is a lack of mandate or expertise to check whether patents are being violated or not when the invention by the patent is a part of the new plant variety. Such efforts to connect various constitutional authorities are not new in the Indian context – we have seen that pharmaceutical companies have attempted to link patent enforcement with regulatory approval by regulatory authorities. After all, they failed in the Delhi High Court’s decision that the law does not need such a relationship.
NOC required by the Plant Breeders
In addition to the knowledge sought by the Authority under PVPFRA, the second It was in the context of the approved approval by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), which was necessary by the plant breeders, who wanted to release varieties of their new plant. According to a note put on their website by the National Seed Association of India (NSI), GEAC needed an NCC from the company, which developed the properties of GM (usually Monsanto), before it was introduced in a new transgenic variety market . Obviously this was one of the reasons that Indian companies were forced to sign a ‘one-way’ licensing agreement with Monsanto. Even this NoC requirement has reportedly been scrapped and new plant breeders will not require such NoCs from Monsanto or any other company that has developed the new GM Trait.
This means that they can leave the varieties of their new plant in the market without stopping the Monsanto’s permission and with the prospect of biotech companies like preventing the issuing of new plant varieties. It reduces the ability of Monsanto to control the market and that is a good thing. However, this does not mean that Monsanto cannot sue them for patent infringement or breach of a licensing agreement.
The only way in such cases is to sign a license agreement with Monsanto and there is nothing that can stop Monsanto to implement the same restrictive agreements as a part of its licensing requirements, unless the competition Commission does not consider such restrictions of India as unfair.