Are states superseding the centre in agro-input regulation?

India’s agriculture sector stands at a crucial juncture. As the country seeks to balance food security, transition towards a modern export-oriented agricultural economy, and promote ease of doing business, the role of regulation has become more important than ever. Yet, instead of enabling growth, the regulatory landscape governing agricultural inputs is becoming increasingly fragmented. A growing number of states are issuing their own rules, restrictions and administrative orders in areas already governed by central insecticide law, creating uncertainty for industry and raising a fundamental question: are states, in effect, superseding the Centre in agro-input regulation?

The complexity stems from India’s constitutional framework. The Centre has enacted key laws such as the Insecticides Act, 1968, the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985, and the Seeds Act, 1966, with the intent of creating a uniform national regulatory system. However, agriculture being primarily a State subject, the implementation of these laws differs widely across states, leading to a fragmented system where the same central legislation is interpreted and enforced differently across jurisdictions.

States are not necessarily enacting separate legislation but are increasingly using delegated authority, regulatory flexibility and enforcement mechanisms to introduce additional layers of control. These include state-specific licensing conditions, inspection drives, documentation requirements, stock reporting norms and product restrictions. While these measures are often justified in the name of farmer safety and quality assurance, they effectively create a parallel compliance structure for industry.

Sampling of pesticides and fertilisers is essential to prevent the sale of substandard products. However, the process is not always implemented in a uniform or fully scientific manner. In Maharashtra, for instance, the central Insecticides Act, 1968, is being implemented along with state-specific amendments through the Amendment Act, 2023. There are also instances where non-technical personnel, such as campaign staff at the Zila Parishad level, are involved in inspections. This creates confusion among dealers and distributors and adds pressure on legitimate businesses. Industry stakeholders often describe this situation as an “inspector raj”, as frequent inspections lead to operational difficulties not only for companies but also for farmers who depend on the timely availability of agri-inputs. At the same time, stricter penalties have been introduced for the sale of substandard pesticide products, including imprisonment and non-bailable offences. While the intent is to curb poor-quality and illegal trade, concerns remain regarding uneven enforcement, with inspections often focusing on established compliant companies while “fly-by-night” operators escape scrutiny, reducing overall effectiveness.

For India to achieve its goals of agricultural growth, innovation and farmer welfare, greater alignment between the Centre and the states is essential. States remain the first point of contact for farmers and play a crucial role in enforcement, but their actions should reinforce, not override, the central framework. Under Section 27 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, states can impose temporary bans on pesticide molecules for up to 60 days, extendable by another 30 days, with a maximum of 90 days. However, concerns arise when such restrictions are repeatedly extended or reimposed without fresh scientific evidence. For instance, Paraquat was banned in Odisha in 2023 and continues to remain unavailable for sale. Telangana recently imposed a 60-day ban on the same molecule. Similarly, Punjab imposed a 60-day ban on 11 insecticides, including Acephate, Triazophos and Thiamethoxam. Meanwhile, the Punjab and Haryana High Court stayed a separate state ban on 12 pesticide molecules, citing an insufficient scientific basis.

While working within the framework of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and the Insecticides Rules, 1971, states are increasingly introducing localised regulations and initiatives to oversee biopesticides. At the same time, although the biostimulant guidelines are not being opposed, gaps in implementation and interpretation at the ground level are leading to uncertainty. Divergent approaches across states, along with occasional restrictive actions such as those reported in Rajasthan, are further adding to the complexity of the regulatory environment.

Additional conditions imposed by some states, such as mandatory stock reporting and movement restrictions, are disrupting the timely availability of fertilisers, especially during sowing seasons. By introducing localised rules for micronutrients beyond the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985, states are adding complexity, increasing compliance burdens and creating avoidable bottlenecks in the agricultural supply chain.

Similar challenges are also seen in seed regulation, where additional requirements such as separate sale permissions, mandatory local trials and extra approval processes delay the rollout of new seed varieties. At the enforcement level, actions have also become increasingly stringent; for example, in Pune in 2024, the state agriculture department registered 149 court cases against seed companies, suspended 266 dealer licences, cancelled 485 licences, issued stop-sale orders to 1,044 retailers and filed 50 police cases in connection with the alleged supply of bogus seeds, reflecting the extent of regulatory enforcement at the field level. In some states, additional documentation, local office requirements, technical staffing details or affidavits beyond standard central requirements are being asked for. For example, the Haryana Government has even attempted to initiate proceedings against MDs, directors and CEOs of companies, reflecting the intensity of enforcement in certain jurisdictions. The State of Karnataka is emphasising the requirement for an affidavit from the director.

These developments underline a growing structural imbalance in India’s agro-input regulatory ecosystem. While states are essential for enforcement and farmer protection, excessive or inconsistent interventions risk creating uncertainty, disrupting supply chains and increasing compliance burdens. A harmonised, science-based regulatory framework-anchored in coordination between the Centre and the states-is therefore critical. Only through cooperative federalism can India ensure that regulation strengthens farmer welfare while supporting innovation, trade efficiency and timely access to quality agricultural inputs.

The writer is the Director General of the Agrochem Federation of India (ACFI); Views presented are personal.