Explainer: Pesticide Management Bill: Hits and Misses

The Central government is expected to introduce a new Pesticide Management Bill to replace the Insecticides Act, 1968, in the forthcoming session of Parliament. The Bill, which aims to regulate and monitor the sale of pesticides in the country, has been in the making for several years. It has also undergone multiple revisions over time, as the government seeks to reform the sector in a way that encourages the industry to introduce innovative products while remaining sensitive to farmers’ demand for safe and affordable pesticides.

Balancing the interests of the industry, farmers, and civil society organisations advocating minimal use of chemical pesticides has made amendments to the decades-old law a complex task. The current draft has also drawn mixed responses from stakeholders. Here are the key highlights of the Pesticide Management Bill and stakeholder views:

Constitution of Central Pesticides Board

Within six months of the enactment of the Act, the government proposes to constitute a Central Pesticides Board to advise the Centre on criteria for good manufacturing practices, including processes for pesticide manufacturers, best practices for pest control operators, procedures for recall of pesticides, environmentally sound disposal of pesticides and packaging, and standards for laboratories. The Board will also address matters such as advertising standards, model protocols for handling poisoning incidents—including standard operating procedures for medical facilities—and research on safer alternatives, including agro-ecological practices.

Stakeholder View

Pesticide Action Network (PAN) India says the draft is comprehensive in outlining the Board’s functions but weak in enforceability, as its role appears largely advisory. It has called for clearly defined obligations, timelines, transparency, and accountability mechanisms.

Registration of Pesticides

This section states that any person seeking to import or manufacture pesticides—for agriculture, storage, industry, pest control operations, or public health—must apply digitally to the Registration Committee for a certificate. It also lays down provisions for review, suspension, cancellation, and bans.

Stakeholder View

Industry body CropLife has called for greater clarity in the procedures and governance of the Registration Committee, including documented decision-making frameworks and indicative timelines to ensure consistency, transparency, and predictability while preserving scientific autonomy.

Grant of Licences

This section covers the appointment of licensing officers by state governments, procedures for granting licences, and provisions for revocation and appeals.

Stakeholder View

CropLife has suggested that the Central government should prescribe uniform qualifications, powers, and functions for licensing officers, inspectors, and analysts, rather than leaving it to states, to ensure consistent technical standards and enforcement across the country.

Offences and Punishment

This section outlines actions following convictions, offences by companies, and appeal procedures.

Stakeholder View

CropLife has recommended that where a company has multiple manufacturing facilities, storage units, or branches, only the designated person in charge of the specific unit should be held liable for violations at that location. It has also called for a clear distinction between minor procedural lapses and wilful violations, along with a statutory rectification mechanism for minor non-compliances before penalties are imposed. Additionally, it has suggested reviewing the scope of scheduled offences to ensure proportionality.

Existing Gaps

Stakeholders have also highlighted provisions that are missing from the draft Bill.

For instance, CropLife has pointed out the absence of protection for the extensive safety, efficacy, residue, and environmental data generated for registering new pesticides. It has recommended a limited, time-bound regulatory data protection framework—about five years from the date of first registration—for new molecules and uses. During this period, subsequent applicants should not be allowed to rely on the originator’s data without consent or independent data generation.

The industry body has also noted the lack of provisions regulating the sale of pesticides through e-commerce platforms. It has suggested explicit statutory obligations for such platforms, including verification of licensed sellers, product traceability, territorial compliance, maintenance of digital transaction records, and notice-and-takedown responsibilities.

Meanwhile, PAN India has recommended the inclusion of a dedicated section on “Adverse Events and Liability in Pesticide Use.” This should cover mandatory reporting, investigation and documentation, civil and criminal liability, as well as transparency and public disclosure.