Pesticides Management Bill, 2025

• The government has invited public feedback on the Draft Pesticides Management Bill, 2025.

• The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (MoA&FW) prepared the draft Bill to replace the Insecticides Act, 1968, and the Insecticides Rules, 1971.
• Objective: To modernise the regulatory framework and ensure better accountability and management of pesticides throughout their lifecycle.
• Centralised Control: The Bill (Section 2) formally declares that it is necessary in the public interest to bring the regulation of the pesticide industry under the Union Government.
• Institutional Framework: The Bill establishes a two-tier oversight structure:
  • Central Pesticides Board: An advisory body with representatives from the Health, Environment, and Agriculture ministries to set safety and disposal standards.
  • Registration Committee: The executive authority responsible for evaluating pesticide applications for safety and efficacy.

Key Provisions of the Draft Bill

• Combating Spurious Products: The Bill introduces stricter controls and higher penalties to curb counterfeit and substandard pesticides.
• Decriminalisation: Minor procedural lapses are to be compounded rather than treated as criminal acts, aligning with ease-of-living reforms.
• Time-bound Approvals: Registration decisions must be made within 12–18 months; generic pesticides are approved after 18 months if undecided.
• Digital Traceability: The Bill mandates digital licensing and technology-enabled supply-chain tracking to ensure transparency and verify product quality.
• Laboratory Accreditation: Mandatory accreditation of all pesticide testing laboratories to ensure regulatory data credibility and global benchmarking.
• Safety Standards: The Bill sets standards for worker training, occupational health, and the protection of beneficial organisms such as pollinators.

• Promotion of Alternatives: It creates legal pathways to exempt and promote biopesticides, Integrated Pest Management (IPM), and traditional-knowledge-based solutions.

Challenges

• Diluted Safety Mandate: The 2025 draft uses the phrase “strive to minimize risk” regarding human and environmental health, which critics argue acts as an escape clause for regulators and manufacturers compared to the stronger, mandatory “minimize risk” language found in global conventions.
• Centralization of Power: State governments have limited authority to prohibit hazardous pesticides. They can only impose a temporary ban (up to one year), which must be reviewed by the Central Registration Committee, potentially overriding local ecological or health concerns.
• Absence of Price Regulation: The Bill does not establish a regulatory authority to control the pricing of pesticides. Without a pricing mechanism, farmers remain vulnerable to exorbitant costs imposed by agrochemical companies, directly impacting agricultural input costs.
• Lack of Accountability Provisions: There are no explicit provisions for criminal liability for manufacturers or distributors in cases where pesticide use leads to environmental contamination, poisoning, or farmer suicides. The liability framework remains largely civil rather than criminal for severe damages.
• Exclusion of Compensation Mechanism: Unlike previous discussions, the draft lacks a clear, statutory compensation fund for farmers or farm laborers who suffer health complications or economic loss due to spurious or hazardous pesticides.
• Concerns on “Deemed Registration”: The introduction of a “deemed registration” clause (where a pesticide is automatically registered if the committee fails to decide within a set timeframe) prioritizes “Ease of Doing Business” but may inadvertently allow unsafe products into the market due to bureaucratic delays.
• Inadequate Industry Data Protection: The industry has raised concerns regarding the lack of Regulatory Data Protection (RDP) provisions, arguing that without protection for proprietary trial data, innovation in introducing newer, safer molecules may be discouraged.

Way Forward

• Strengthening State Autonomy: The Bill should be amended to empower State governments with the authority to permanently ban specific pesticides based on local agro-climatic conditions and health data, rather than relying solely on Central approval.
• Mandating Price Caps: A regulatory body similar to the National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) should be established to monitor and cap the prices of essential pesticides, ensuring affordability for small and marginal farmers.
• Enforcing Polluter Pays Principle: Specific liability clauses must be introduced to hold manufacturers criminally and financially accountable for verifiable long-term environmental damage or health hazards caused by their products.
• Establishing a Compensation Fund: A dedicated corpus funded by a cess on the pesticide industry should be created to provide immediate ex-gratia compensation to victims of pesticide poisoning and their families.
• Prioritizing Bio-Pesticides: The regulatory pathway for bio-pesticides and organic pest control methods should be significantly fast-tracked and subsidized to reduce dependency on chemical inputs and align with the push for natural farming.
• Independent Review Mechanism: The “strive to minimize” language must be replaced with a mandatory obligation. Furthermore, the Central Pesticides Board should include independent health and environmental experts to avoid conflict of interest with the agro-chemical industry.