India: CCFI responses on Punjab Notification regarding stop sales of 10 molecules on rice

In response to the notification issued by department of Agriculture, Punjab to stop sales of 10 pesticides, CCFI has represented to Mr Dilraj Singh, Secretary Agriculture, punjab besides Mr Rahul Gupta Addl secretary and Shri Gurvinder Singh, Director agriculture Punjab stating that the impugned order is against the interest of the farming community, taken just at the onset of the season for rice & basmati rice which is arbitrary, illegal, unlawful and unsustainable.

The impugned order is manifestly arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of the Insecticides Act especially with reference to Section 27 read with Section 26

The federation has urged to rescind the impugned order with immediate effect, for rice growers to carry out timely their crop protection measures to reduce crop losses & maintain productivity levels

Copies of our representation (check below) have also been forwarded to Mr Manoj Ahuja IAS, Secretary Agriculture & Dr PK Meherda IAS JSPP at New Delhi seeking their intervention.

To
Shri. Dilraj Singh
Secretary Agriculture
Department of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Punjab
Mini Secretariat Punjab,
Jan Marg, 9A, Sector 9,
Chandigarh – 160 009
 
Dear Sir,
 
We refer to your notification no. 15/2/2022-Agri-2(6)/9654 dated 12-08-2022 which reads:
 
″Whereas the State Government is of the opinion that the sale, stock, distribution and use of insecticides indicate in the table give below, is not in the interest of basmati rice growers in view of the reason recorded below; namely:-
 
That there is a risk of higher pesticide residues than Maxium Residual Level (MRL) fixed by the competent authority in the basmati rice grains on account of use of these agro-chemicals.
 
That the Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), Ludhiana has recommended alternative agrochemicals to control pests of basmati rice in Punjab.
 
That the Punjab Rice Millers and Exporters Association has also reported that many samples got tested by them contain the residue value of these pesticides much above the MRL values in Basmati Rice. The Association requested for ban of these agrochemical to save the heritage Basmati produce of Punjab, and to ensure hassle free export of basmati rice to other countries ;and
 
Whereas in view of the above, it is imperative to prohibit the sale, stock, distribution and use of insecticides indicated in the Table given below, on Basmati crop in the state, being potential constraint in export and consumption of rice, especially Basmati rice ;and:-
 

 
Whereas the alternatives to the said insecticides, which are low in residue effect, are available in the market.
 
Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of section 27 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (Central Act No. 46 of 1968), and all other powers enabling him in this behalf, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to prohibit the sale, stock, distribution and use of all types of formulations of the insecticides, indicated in the ‘Table’ in the state of Punjab for a period of sixty days so that good quality of basmati rice with no residual effect can be produced.″
 
A plain reading of the impugned ban order shows that it has been issued under Section 27 of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
 
 
Section 27 of the Insecticides Act must be read with Section 26 of the Insecticides Act. We reproduce below both the Sections for ready reference:
 
Section 27 of Insecticides Act, 1968
 
Prohibition of sale, etc., of insecticides for reasons of public safety.— (1) If, on receipt of a report under section 26 or otherwise, the Central Government or the State Government is of opinion, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that use of any insecticide specified in 3***  clause (e) of section 3 or any specific batch thereof is likely to involve such risk to human beings or animals as to render it expedient or necessary to take immediate action then that Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit the sale, distribution or use of the insecticide or batch, in such area, to such extent and for such period (not exceeding sixty days) as may be specified in the notification pending investigation into the matter:
 
Provided that where the investigation is not completed within the said period, the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may extend it by such further period or periods not exceeding thirty days in the aggregate as it may specify in a like manner.
 
(2) If, as a result of its own investigation or on receipt of the report from the State Government, and after consultation with the Registration Committee, the Central Government is satisfied that the use of the said insecticide or batch is or is not likely to cause any such risk, it may pass such order (including an order refusing to register the insecticide or cancelling the certificate of registration, if any, granted in respect thereof), as it deems fit, depending on the circumstances of the case.
 
Our comments:
 
The section 27 of the Insecticides Act  is titled ″Prohibition of sale etc of insecticides for reasons of public safety″
 
The State Government can pass a temporary ban on the sale and use of any insecticide under Section 27 of the Insecticides Act only if its use is likely to  cause risk to human beings or animals- for reasons of public safety.
 
Pertinently, the Section 27 cannot be invoked in the absence of reports of ″occurrences of poisoning″ u/s 26 of the Insecticides Act.
 
There is nothing on record to show that ″occurrences of poisoning″ have been reported in the state of Punjab involving the 10 pesticides banned by you u/s27 of the Insecticides Act.
 
Your order dated makes no reference to ″any occurrences of poisoning″.
 
The alleged MRL violations cited in your order (without any material evidence) would not amount to ″occurrences of poisoning″ jeopardizing public safety.
 
The State Governments do not have any powers under Section 27 read with Section 26 of the Insecticides Act to ban sale and use of registered insecticides taking into account suggestions from a third party - which in this case is Punjab Rice Millers and Exporters Association.
 
The list of 10 pesticides banned by you at the request of a third party surprisingly includes a pesticide that has never been registered in India.
 
All these show that the impugned order suffers from the vice of total non-application of mind. It suffers from utter disregard to the statutory requirement.
 
The impugned order is manifestly arbitrary and ultra vires the provisions of the Insecticides Act especially with reference to Section 27 read with Section 26
 
Our demand:
 
We hold that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal, unlawful and unsustainable.
 
We urge you to repeal/rescind the impugned order, immediately upon receipt of this communication.
 
We are sending this communication without prejudice to our other rights.
 
Thanking you
For Crop Care Federation of India
Nirmala Pathrawal
Executive Director
 
Copy to:
 
1. Shri. Rahul Gupta, Additional Secretary Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Punjab, Mini Secretariat Punjab, Jan Marg, 9A, Sector 9, Chandigarh – 160 009.
 
2. Shri. Gurvinder Singh, Director of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare Punjab, Kheti Bhawan, Sector 56, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Punjab -160 055.