Innocent infringement explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
Three short sections add protections around the farmers' rights in section 39. A farmer who did not know of a registered right is not treated as an infringer. A variety derived from a farmers' variety cannot be authorised without the farming community's consent. And farmers, groups of farmers and village communities pay no fees in proceedings under the Act.
Provisions as amended up to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021 (in force 4 April 2021); no later amendment as of 3 October 2026. Later notifications should be checked on plantauthority.gov.in.
A right under the Act is not infringed by a farmer who was not aware of its existence, and no court relief or cognizance of an offence follows against a farmer who proves this (s.42). Where an essentially derived variety comes from a farmers' variety, the authorisation under section 28(2) needs the consent of the farmers who contributed (s.43). A farmer, group of farmers or village community is not liable to pay any fees in any proceeding before the Authority, the Registrar or the High Court (s.44).
Section 42: innocent infringement
Section 42 begins "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act" and has two limbs.
| Limb | Protection |
|---|---|
| (i) | A right established under the Act "shall not be deemed to be infringed by a farmer who at the time of such infringement was not aware of the existence of such right" |
| (ii) | A relief which a court may grant in any infringement suit under section 65 shall not be granted, and no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act, against a farmer "who proves, before such court, that at the time of the infringement he was not aware of the existence of the right so infringed" |
How the two limbs differ
Limb (i) is a rule of substance: no infringement. Limb (ii) is a rule of procedure and evidence: the farmer must prove before the court that he was not aware. In practice the farmer has to raise and establish lack of awareness; the court will not assume it. A farmer or a farmer producer organisation facing such an allegation can get advice on this burden through legal dispute resolution. The sections on infringement and offences are in sections 64 to 67.
Who counts as a farmer
The definition of "farmer" in section 2(k) covers a person who cultivates crops by cultivating the land himself or through supervised cultivation, and also a person who conserves and preserves wild species or traditional varieties. The section protects "a farmer" only. A seed trader or company cannot rely on it.
What the section does not say
It protects a farmer's lack of awareness of "the existence of such right". It does not define awareness or how it may be proved, and it does not say what happens once a farmer becomes aware. The test is awareness "at the time of such infringement".
An invented example: Ramesh, a farmer in Uttar Pradesh, buys loose seed from a local dealer, unaware that it is of a registered variety, and multiplies it for sale to neighbours. A seed company sues for infringement. Ramesh proves that, at the time, he did not know of the registered right. Under section 42(ii) the court cannot grant relief against him.
Section 43: consent for a variety derived from a farmers' variety
"Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) of section 23 and section 28, where an essentially derived variety is derived from a farmers' variety, the authorisation under sub-section (2) of section 28 shall not be given by the breeder of such farmers' variety except with the consent of the farmers or group of farmers or community of farmers who have made contribution in the preservation or development of such variety."
Under section 23(6), an initial breeder's authorisation to the breeder of an essentially derived variety may be subject to terms the parties agree. Section 43 puts a gate in front of that when the initial variety is a farmers' variety: the breeder of the farmers' variety cannot authorise the derivative without the consent of the contributing farmers, group or community. The Act does not say how consent is to be recorded.
Section 44: exemption from fees
"A farmer or group of farmers or village community shall not be liable to pay any fees in any proceeding before the Authority or Registrar or the High Court under this Act or the rules made thereunder." The words "or the Tribunal" were omitted by the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, so the High Court now stands where the Tribunal stood.
The Explanation widens "fees in any proceeding": it "includes any fees payable for inspection of any document or for obtaining a copy of any decision or order or document under this Act or the rules made thereunder."
| Item | Position |
|---|---|
| Application fee, opposition fee, claim fee in proceedings | No fee for a farmer, group of farmers or village community |
| Fee for inspection of a document | Included in the exemption |
| Fee for a copy of a decision, order or document | Included in the exemption |
The Rules and Schedules reflect this in places: for example, no opposition fee is payable for an opposition made by a farmer, group of farmers or village community (rule 31), and the Second Schedule entry for renewal shows "Farmers-Nil". The full fee schedule is in the Second Schedule article. Annual retention fees are notified separately; see section 35. Section 44 speaks of fees "in any proceeding"; whether it reaches the annual retention fee is not addressed in the text, so check the notification and the Authority's website.
Need help with an infringement allegation against a farmer?
A farmer or a farmer producer organisation facing an infringement claim needs to know what must be proved and when. Our team can advise through our legal dispute resolution service.
Key takeaways
- A farmer who was not aware of a registered right at the time does not infringe it (s.42(i)).
- A farmer who proves lack of awareness before the court cannot be given infringement relief or prosecuted (s.42(ii)).
- Authorisation of a variety derived from a farmers' variety needs the contributing farmers' consent (s.43).
- Farmers, groups and village communities pay no fees in proceedings, including for inspection and copies (s.44).
- "Or the Tribunal" is omitted; the High Court now appears in section 44.
Read next
- Section 23: essentially derived varieties
- Section 39: farmers' rights
- Sections 64-67: infringement and relief
- Second Schedule: fees
Disclaimer: Based on the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001 as amended up to the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, the PPV&FR Rules, 2003 as amended up to G.S.R. 803(E) of 16 November 2021, and the regulations, rules and scheme named in the article, as published by the PPV&FR Authority and consulted on 3 October 2026. Later notifications should be checked on plantauthority.gov.in. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.