The Seed Bill, 2025, set to be introduced in the ongoing Budget session, aims to replace the decades-old Seed Act, 1966, and the Seed (Control) Order, 1988, marking a significant update in India’s seed regulation framework. The existing regulatory frameworks were designed in the 20th century to facilitate the state-led Green Revolution with limited corporate partnership. The changing nature of the Indian economy since the 1990 reforms requires an update to the current legal framework for seed governance in India. Union agriculture minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan has rhetorically mentioned the importance of the new Bill on January 16. Domestic and international private seed companies are increasingly participating in the research, development, and marketing of seeds. However, the neoliberal mode of regulation in the new Bill raises serious concerns about farmer autonomy, epistemic injustice, commodification of seed, and regional disparities stemming from flawed zoning. What does the Seeds Bill, 2025 propose?This Bill introduces new regulations on seed sales and imports, claiming to protect farmers’ rights to grow, save, exchange, and sell registered farm seeds, except when they engage in commercial branding. Its goal is to enhance seed quality and traceability, reduce spurious sales, and establish uniform standards (Value for Cultivation and Use or VSU) for market access. All seed varieties will be listed in the national register on seed varieties, which can be traced via QR codes through the centralised seed traceability portal. Additionally, it requires registration for all seed producers, dealers, distributors, seed processing units, and plant nurseries.A 27-member central seed committee and a 15-member state seed committee will be established to regulate and provide advisory support, respectively. States and Union Territories will be divided into five zones, with one farmer representative from each zone on the central committee. The recommendations from these committees require Union government’s approval, which will set seed standards and direct state policies. To promote ease of doing business, a central accreditation system is proposed to be created for multi-state companies. The application for registration submitted by such a company cannot be rejected on technical, financial, or infrastructural grounds. To enforce compliance, seed inspectors will be appointed. Moreover, serious violations will be penalised with a penalty of up to Rs 30 lakh and imprisonment of up to three years.Thus, the Bill adopts a highly technocratic, tightly regulated and centralised framework for seed governance that creates an illusion of participation. Uniform regulation of seeds and their unequal consequences on farmersThe Bill inherits a corporate bias that functions as a gatekeeper for farming communities and facilitates market access for corporations in the name of ease of doing business. Farmer associations and unions across India have expressed firm dissatisfaction. For instance, the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS), Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM), Andhra Pradesh Rythu Sangam, and Kisan Tenant Associations have opposed this Bill.However, the Federation of the Seed Industry of India, a leading seed industry association, has supported the Bill, saying it will improve ease of doing business. The central question is: for whom is ease of doing business, and who needs it the most? Is it the individual farmers, farming communities, NGOs, SHGs, MSMEs, or large agricultural companies? Part B of the Bill mentions five geographical zones that group states purely on cartographic grounds, resulting in flawed zoning. Zoning is attributed without accounting for differences in cropping systems, agro-climatic conditions (soil types, water availability, temperature, precipitation, etc.), topography, and agricultural practices. For instance, it clubs Chandigarh, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Ladakh, National Capital Territory of Delhi, Punjab, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh in Zone V despite radical differences in topography, agro-climatic conditions, and agricultural practices among these regions. Likewise, Goa and Rajasthan are clubbed in Zone IV along with other states on the western border of Indian territory.One farmer representative from each zone, on a rotation basis, would be a member of the central seed committee. It can undermine the interests of small and marginal farmers, considering the vast socio-economic and agro-climatic differences within each zone. Politically active, dominant and rich farmers can be more discursive than others. Small farmers, for instance, in mountainous regions who depend on subsistence farming with indigenous seeds in adverse climatic conditions cannot be compared with wealthy farmers of the Indo-Gangetic plains, where agriculture is highly mechanised and market-oriented.Clearly, the Seeds Bill focuses on increased commercialisation of the agricultural sector, thereby giving only the dominant class of farmers disproportionate economic and political benefits. The new Bill rhetorically mentions farmers’ rights to sell and exchange seeds within their communities, except when they do so under a brand name, but farmers have been doing so for ages. There are numerous regional farmer groups, SHGs, farmer cooperatives, NGOs and other community initiatives for seed sovereignty across India. They are not incentivised, rather they may have to follow uniform standards even to sell seeds regionally, if they do so under a brand name, as the recognised rights under this Bill are not group rights and are extended only to individual farmers. Most of these initiatives are women-led and engage indigenous seed practices. But the Bill has not recognised their significant roles and rights in farming, thus raising serious concerns for gender injustice. The farming community is treated not as a possessor of original knowledge but as a consumer of seeds from the industry. The seed certification standards under VCU are designed to favour high-yielding varieties; indigenous seeds that are climate-resilient and adaptive may not meet uniform criteria, as they are grown locally by farmers, not in labs. Thus, the Bill, instead of protecting and extending rights to farmers, creates a narrative of a welfarist, paternalistic state in the guise of a neoliberal state. It might lead to state-sponsored epistemic injustice against traditional farmers and to the marginalisation of indigenous varieties and practices. The new Bill, if passed, would further commodify seed, which is the foundation of agriculture. State seed committees, which are empowered to advise the state government on matters related to seeds and state seed varieties, would collect information from lists of dealers, seed producers, processing units, etc. It systematically excludes farmers who use indigenous seeds from listing the local seed varieties. This will have long-term implications for local seed varieties, as they remain formally unrecognised. It would expose farmers, especially small and marginal women farmers, to exploitative market practices. It would further undermine their sovereignty rather than strengthen their rights in the hands of national and multinational private companies. Further, the Bill weakens federal spirit by undermining state and local governance, and even the central seed committee’s recommendations are subject to the Union government’s approval. Instead of promoting participatory governance, this Bill promotes centralised, techno-bureaucratic, corporate-friendly mechanisms which can erode farmers’ rights. Way forward: Democratising seed governance beyond politics of symbolismFarmers who practice traditional agricultural practices with indigenous seed not only preserve cultural heritage but also provide a positive externality to society. However, there are real costs behind it; the drudgery and lack of economic incentives make the situation worse for small farmers dependent on subsistence agriculture. The ‘politics of symbolism‘ with its rhetoric of protecting farmers’ rights would be of little help to small farmers unless genuine measures are taken to secure their rights. Instead of incentivising farmers for seed sovereignty and protecting their rights, the Seed Bill 2025 would end up transferring farmers’ resources and their management to the liberalised, globalised market. Indigenous seeds have no formal pathway for institutionalisation, thus, remain structurally marginalised at the hands of the so-called protector, i.e. state. For sustainable and inclusive development, these seeds should be recognised as common property of the farming community. The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, at least recognised farmers as breeders and conservers of biodiversity. Regional provisions should be made for seed governance, distinct from centrally imposed uniform standards for seed certification. This would also require a different rationality for geographical zoning. Instead of the bureaucratic distinction of zones in a random cartographical manner, factors that affect agriculture should be taken into consideration. Similarities in geographical features, such as agro-climatic conditions, cropping systems, people’s relations with their environment and land can serve as criteria for defining zones. This would ensure proper representation by the farmer member in the central seed committee, as their interests and issues will align with those of other farmers in the same zone. In this way, the government can ensure participatory governance, foster democratic values, and protect farmers’ rights. Priyanka Bedwal is a final year Master’s student of Political Science at University of Hyderabad.