Draft Pesticides Management Bill, 2025: A step forward, but far from flawless
12 crore farmers in India, who together contribute to one of the largest agricultural outputs in the world, are directly impacted by the pesticides market valued at ₹45,000 crore annually. Yet, nearly 30% of pesticides sold in India are spurious or substandard, compromising both yields and environmental safety. On 8 January 2026, the draft Pesticides Management Bill (PMB), 2025 opened for public consultation, signaling the Centre’s intent to overhaul the archaic Insecticides Act, 1968. While the bill proposes modernized institutional mechanisms, the question remains: can it effectively bridge decades-long gaps in regulatory oversight?
Institutional Framework: Structural aspirations versus bureaucratic hurdles
The draft PMB pivots to an ambitious institutional restructuring. Two cornerstone bodies are proposed:
- Central Pesticides Board (CPB): Tasked with scientific oversight and technical guidance, this apex body must be established within six months of the bill’s enactment.
- Registration Committee: Responsible for evaluating digital applications for pesticide manufacturing or imports, with decisions premised on safety, efficacy, and necessity.
Digital registration is an overdue reform in a sector plagued by ad hoc processes under the 1968 Act. The PMB envisions streamlined, tech-driven regulation—from registration to enforcement. State governments are mandated to submit periodic reports, while enforcement powers are distributed between pesticide inspectors and licensing officers.
Financial penalties for violations have been enhanced, allowing state-level authorities to impose stricter fines for compounded offences. As per the proposed framework, even a licensed manufacturer can see their registration suspended or cancelled if safety conditions are violated—an explicit accountability measure absent in India’s existing regulatory regime.
Policy Depth: Does modernization fix ground realities?
The focus on digital processes for licensing is significant, but the bill’s promises may ring hollow without clarity on execution. For instance, India's pesticide inspector cadre is grossly under-resourced; data from 2023 revealed that nearly 40% of sanctioned inspector posts remain vacant across states. Modernizing the system without addressing such operational bottlenecks risks turning ambitious plans into mere paperwork.
The bill also touts the ability to ban hazardous pesticides, yet does not adequately define how evidence will be weighed in cancellation decisions. The contentious case of profenofos—a pesticide linked to neurological damage but still widely used in cotton farming—underscores the challenges of balancing agrarian economics with safety norms. Will the CPB push bans based on hard science or succumb to pressure from agrochemical lobbies?
The emphasis on higher penalties is welcome—states imposing stricter fines offers deterrence. However, enforcement is often politicized; state governments with weaker local governance may undermine stringent intervention. Cases of pesticide adulteration, such as in Andhra Pradesh in 2022 leading to crop losses across 12 villages, resulted in a muted response despite significant local protest.
Structural Tensions: State autonomy versus central control
The PMB rests on cooperative federalism, but its interpretation of execution raises issues. While the Centre’s decision-making bodies hold oversight powers, implementation is largely funneled through state governments. This split governance is vulnerable to friction, particularly in states with competing political priorities. The periodic reporting mandate risks data dilution, given that compliance reports often diverge sharply between states. This mirrors the Centre-state reporting friction seen in the implementation of PM-KISAN, where states struggled with digitized beneficiary verification.
Adding to the complexity is the lack of clarity about funding. The bill speaks of technology-powered processes but avoids specifying budgetary allocations for states to build the requisite infrastructure. Given the varied capacities of states like Rajasthan versus Kerala, the absence of baseline funding allocations could exacerbate inequities in implementation.
What can India learn from international models?
One instructive case study is the European Union’s Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, which governs pesticide approval. The EU employs a highly centralized scientific panel—the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)—that independently evaluates risks based on region-specific environmental factors. Notably, it mandates a precautionary principle for substances flagged as potentially hazardous during preliminary testing. Unlike India, which permits interim commercial use during extended regulatory reviews, the EU imposes immediate prohibition until risk assessments are resolved. This "prohibit-first" model—though slower—is structurally geared to prioritize health and ecological safety over trade interests. Can India emulate this, or does its farmer-reliant economy leave little room for such caution?
What would success look like?
The metrics of success for the PMB, 2025, should include:
- A reduction in the percentage of spurious pesticides from the current 30% figure to single digits within five years.
- Visible strengthening of state pesticide inspector cadres, evidenced by a substantial decrease in vacancy rates from the existing 40%.
- The establishment of CPB and Registration Committee within the stipulated six-month timeline, alongside transparent digitized processes.
It is premature to assess whether this draft can entirely supplant the structural weaknesses of the 1968 Act. Much hinges on state-level cooperation and securing independent scientific validation for risk assessments—an area heavily swayed by lobbying influences. Without clear budgetary commitments and unyielding enforcement against violators, the bill could meet the same fate as its predecessor: partial success marred by institutional gaps.
Exam Preparation
Prelims MCQs:
- Which body is proposed as the apex regulator in the Pesticides Management Bill, 2025?
- a) Registration Committee
- b) Central Pesticides Board
- c) Pesticide Inspectors Panel
- d) Agriculture Tribunal
- Under the Pesticides Management Bill, 2025, which of the following actions can lead to the suspension of a pesticide license?
- a) Non-payment of GST
- b) Violation of safety norms
- c) Low sales volumes
- d) Dispute between state governments
Mains Question:
Critically evaluate whether the draft Pesticides Management Bill, 2025, addresses the structural limitations in pesticide regulation under the Insecticides Act, 1968. Highlight institutional gaps and suggest measures for effective implementation.
Practice Questions for UPSC
Prelims Practice Questions
- Statement 1: The bill suggests an overhaul of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
- Statement 2: The Central Pesticides Board will not have any enforcement powers.
- Statement 3: Digital registration aims to modernize the evaluation process for pesticides.
Which of the above statements is/are correct?
- Statement 1: It could reduce the prevalence of spurious pesticides.
- Statement 2: It might guarantee immediate resolution of all pesticide safety concerns.
- Statement 3: It could enhance accountability among pesticide manufacturers.
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
Frequently Asked Questions
What challenges does the Draft Pesticides Management Bill, 2025 face in its implementation?
The bill faces significant challenges such as a shortage of pesticide inspectors, with nearly 40% of sanctioned posts remaining vacant. This under-resourcing could hinder effective enforcement of the bill's provisions, risking the transition from proposed reforms to actual practices.
How does the proposed Central Pesticides Board (CPB) aim to improve the pesticides regulatory regime in India?
The CPB is designed to provide scientific oversight and technical guidance, which is crucial for modernizing the regulatory framework. By aiming to establish this board within six months of the bill’s enactment, the framework seeks to create a more effective process for evaluating pesticide safety and efficacy.
What is the significance of implementing digital registration for pesticide manufacturing and imports under the new bill?
Digital registration represents a major step forward in streamlining the registration process, moving away from the ad hoc methods of the previous Insecticides Act, 1968. This modernization aims to enhance efficiency, transparency, and accountability in the pesticide market, which has been plagued by spurious products.
In what ways might existing political structures disrupt the implementation of the Draft Pesticides Management Bill, 2025?
The bill's reliance on cooperative federalism could lead to friction between state and central governments, especially when political priorities diverge. This could result in inconsistent implementation of the bill across states, potentially diluting the effectiveness of the regulatory frameworks intended to protect farmers and the environment.
What lessons can India learn from the European Union’s approach to pesticide approval?
India can draw from the EU's precautionary principle, which prioritizes health and safety by regulating potentially hazardous substances before allowing commercial use. The EU's model of independent risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority emphasizes the need for robust scientific evaluation, an approach that India might consider to enhance its regulatory framework.
About LearnPro Editorial Standards
LearnPro editorial content is researched and reviewed by subject matter experts with backgrounds in civil services preparation. Our articles draw from official government sources, NCERT textbooks, standard reference materials, and reputed publications including The Hindu, Indian Express, and PIB.
Content is regularly updated to reflect the latest syllabus changes, exam patterns, and current developments. For corrections or feedback, contact us at admin@learnpro.in.