The Union government’s release of a fresh draft of the Pesticide Management Bill, 2025 signals another attempt to modernise India’s pesticide regulation regime, replacing a law framed in the Green Revolution era. However, despite nearly two decades of deliberation and repeated drafts, the latest version has reignited debate over whether India is missing a crucial opportunity to strengthen farmer protection, environmental safeguards, and regulatory accountability.
What the Pesticide Management Bill, 2025 proposes
The draft bill, released on January 7 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, seeks to regulate the manufacture, import, sale, distribution, and use of pesticides across India. It is intended to replace the Insecticides Act, 1968 and its associated rules, which are widely seen as outdated given changes in agricultural practices, chemical use, and environmental awareness.
The government describes the bill as “farmer-centric”, emphasising transparency, traceability, and ease of access to quality inputs, while aiming to encourage biological and traditional-knowledge-based pesticides.
How different is it from the 2020 draft?
Substantively, the 2025 draft differs little from the Pesticides Management Bill circulated in 2020. While the number of clauses has been reduced from 65 to 55, critics argue that this streamlining has come at the cost of regulatory strength rather than clarity.
Many long-standing concerns raised by experts, civil society organisations, and parliamentary committees — particularly around enforcement powers, liability, and accountability — remain largely unaddressed.
Language that signals dilution, not strengthening
One of the most contested changes is semantic but significant. The bill states that it aims to “strive to minimise risk” to humans, animals, non-target organisms, and the environment. Advocacy groups such as Pesticide Action Network India had earlier pushed for stronger, mandatory language simply committing to “minimise risk”.
In regulatory law, such phrasing matters: “strive to” is seen as aspirational, not enforceable, potentially weakening the basis for strict action against harmful products.
Limited powers for states remain a core concern
Despite repeated farmer complaints about spurious pesticides and fake seeds — an issue highlighted publicly by Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan — the bill continues to concentrate decisive authority with the Union government.
State governments are allowed only to issue temporary notifications prohibiting the sale, distribution, or use of a pesticide or a specific batch for up to one year. Such notifications must then be reviewed by a centrally constituted Registration Committee, limiting states’ ability to take swift or permanent action.
Centralised institutions, limited enforceability
The bill provides for two key institutional mechanisms:
- Registration Committee: A Union government–appointed body with representatives from central agencies such as ICAR, the environment ministry, chemicals departments, and toxicology institutions.
- Central Pesticides Board: An advisory body to recommend pesticides, frame good manufacturing practices, suggest recall procedures, disposal norms, and model protocols for poisoning incidents.
While these bodies existed in earlier drafts, experts point out that many of their functions remain recommendatory rather than enforceable, limiting their real-world impact.
The missing question of liability and punishment
A major gap in the draft bill is the absence of clear criminal liability provisions. The law does not specify strong punitive mechanisms for manufacturers, distributors, or marketers in cases of misuse — including non-agricultural poisoning of water bodies or suicides linked to pesticide availability.
Without explicit liability and deterrent penalties, critics argue that the bill risks remaining a procedural framework rather than a robust regulatory instrument.
Why this reform has been so delayed
India’s attempt to replace the Insecticides Act has been long and uneven. The first Pesticide Management Bill was introduced in 2008, followed by another version in 2018. A revised draft was placed before the Rajya Sabha in 2020 and examined by a parliamentary standing committee, but legislation has remained stalled since.
The 2025 draft continues this incremental approach, raising questions about political will to fundamentally reform pesticide governance in a country that remains one of the world’s largest consumers of agrochemicals.
Why the bill matters beyond agriculture
Pesticide regulation intersects with public health, environmental protection, water safety, and biodiversity conservation. Weak oversight can translate into long-term soil degradation, contamination of food chains, and increased health costs for rural communities.
At a time when India is promoting sustainable agriculture and climate-resilient farming, the effectiveness of pesticide regulation becomes central to credibility and outcomes.
What to note for Prelims?
- Insecticides Act, 1968 and its proposed replacement
- Role of Registration Committee and Central Pesticides Board
- Difference between advisory and regulatory powers
- Concept of biopesticides and traditional knowledge-based inputs
What to note for Mains?
- Centre–state balance in agricultural regulation
- Link between pesticide regulation, public health, and environment
- Importance of enforceable liability provisions in regulatory laws
- Challenges in updating colonial- and Green Revolution–era legislation