Pesticides Management Bill, 2025: Revised draft but old gaps remain

The proposed Pesticides Management Bill, 2025, represents a significant legislative effort to overhaul the existing regulatory framework for pesticides in India, which has largely been governed by the outdated Insecticides Act, 1968. This move is crucial given the evolving challenges in agriculture, public health, and environmental sustainability. However, a critical point of contention in the revised draft of the 2025 Bill is its failure to empower state governments with regulatory authority, specifically concerning the prohibition of pesticides. This omission centralizes control at the Union level, sparking a debate on federalism in environmental and agricultural governance.

**Background Context: From 1968 to 2025**

The Insecticides Act, 1968, was enacted at a time when India was grappling with food security issues and the Green Revolution was gaining momentum. Its primary focus was on regulating the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution, and use of insecticides to prevent risks to human beings or animals. Over the decades, however, the landscape of pesticide use, scientific understanding of their impacts, and global regulatory standards have drastically changed. Issues like pesticide residues in food, soil and water contamination, impact on biodiversity (like pollinators), and farmer safety have become paramount. The 1968 Act was found to be inadequate in addressing these complex, modern challenges. It lacked provisions for promoting safer alternatives, managing pesticide waste, and ensuring transparent data reporting. Consequently, there has been a long-standing demand for a more comprehensive and contemporary law, leading to the introduction of various drafts, including the Pesticides Management Bill, 2020, which lapsed, and now the revised 2025 version.

**The Core Issue: Centralized Prohibition Powers**

The crux of the current debate lies in the revised Pesticides Management Bill, 2025, retaining the power to prohibit or restrict the use of pesticides exclusively with the Central government. This means that even if a state government identifies a specific pesticide as harmful to its local environment, public health, or particular crop patterns, it would not have the independent authority to ban its use within its borders. Instead, it would have to lobby the Union government for such a prohibition. This approach vests significant power in the Central Pesticides Board and other central authorities, potentially overlooking diverse regional needs and ecological sensitivities.

**Key Stakeholders and Their Stances**

Several key stakeholders are impacted by and have differing views on this aspect of the bill:

1. **Central Government (Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change):** Advocates for a uniform national policy, citing the need to prevent trade barriers between states and leverage central expertise in scientific assessment. They argue that pesticides are inter-state commodities, and varied state-level bans could complicate trade and supply chains.

2. **State Governments:** Many state governments and agricultural departments seek greater autonomy. They argue that they are closer to the ground realities, understand local agro-climatic conditions, pest infestations, and the specific health and environmental impacts of pesticides within their territories. Empowering states would allow for more responsive and targeted regulation.

3. **Farmers:** They are directly affected by pesticide availability and regulation. While some might prefer access to a wide range of pesticides for crop protection, others are increasingly aware of the health and environmental risks and might support stricter, localized controls.

4. **Pesticide Manufacturers and Industry:** Generally favor a uniform national policy to ensure ease of doing business and avoid a patchwork of regulations across different states, which could fragment markets and increase compliance costs.

5. **Environmental Groups and Public Health Advocates:** Strongly advocate for empowering states, emphasizing that local governments are better positioned to assess and respond to environmental degradation and public health crises caused by pesticide overuse or misuse.

**Significance for India: Federalism, Environment, and Agriculture**

This issue has profound implications for India's federal structure and governance. The Seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution delineates legislative powers between the Union and states. 'Agriculture' (Entry 14) and 'Public Health and Sanitation' (Entry 6) fall under the State List, while 'Industries' (Entry 52) and 'Inter-state trade and commerce' (Entry 42) are in the Union List. 'Environmental Protection' broadly falls under the Concurrent List (Article 48A, 51A(g) and Entry 17A of Concurrent List on Forests, Entry 20A on Population Control and Family Planning). The use of pesticides touches upon all these areas. Denying states the power to prohibit pesticides, despite their direct impact on agriculture, health, and environment, can be seen as an erosion of state autonomy and a move towards greater centralization, potentially leading to centre-state conflicts as per Article 246.

Practically, states are often the first responders to issues like crop damage due to pesticide failure, farmer suicides linked to pesticide exposure, or contamination of water bodies. Empowering them would allow for quicker, more tailored responses, fostering cooperative federalism in addressing complex environmental and agricultural challenges. It also impacts the overall push towards sustainable agriculture and organic farming, as states could proactively ban harmful chemicals to promote eco-friendly practices.

**Future Implications**

The current structure of the bill could lead to significant challenges. State governments might feel their concerns are not adequately addressed, potentially leading to delays in implementation or even non-cooperation. There could be legal challenges questioning the constitutional validity of centralizing such powers, particularly if local environmental or health crises linked to specific pesticides arise. A more constructive approach would involve a framework that allows for concurrent powers, where the Centre sets national standards and a baseline, but states are empowered to impose stricter regulations or prohibitions based on local conditions, provided they do not unduly impede inter-state trade. This would align with the spirit of cooperative federalism, ensuring both national uniformity where necessary and local responsiveness where critical. The bill's passage and implementation will be a test of India's commitment to balancing economic interests with environmental protection and public health, while respecting the federal distribution of powers.