Two leading rice exporters’ organisations have urged India’s Commerce Ministry to reconsider the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority’s (Apeda) decision to “arbitrarily” appoint a new law firm for handling global cases on basmati geographical indication (GI) and intellectual property rights (IPR), citing concerns over conflict of interest and lack of stakeholder consultation.
Appeal to Commerce Ministry
The All-India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA) and The Basmati Rice Millers and Exporters Association (Punjab) (BRMEA) sent separate letters to Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal and Apeda Chairman Abhishek Dev, according to the organisations. The letters do not question the law firm’s professional competence but raise concerns about “institutional governance, stakeholder confidence and adherence to the Memorandum and Rules of BEDF (Basmati Export Development Foundation) in matters concerning protection of India’s Basmati Geographical Indication,” said Satish Goel, President of AIREA.
Bal Krishan Garg, President of BRMEA, said the issue concerns “the preservation of India’s long-standing legal doctrine, international credibility and the substantial public and stakeholder investment made over several decades.”
Apeda sources, however, said the law firm was engaged after “due process of tender by an expert selection panel.”
Conflict of Interest Concerns
A key point of contention is the law firm’s previous representation of petitioners seeking the inclusion of Madhya Pradesh regions in the Basmati GI area. Apeda had historically opposed such inclusion. Garg stated, “Any firm representing parties favouring the expansion of basmati rice growing area while simultaneously advising Apeda is in conflict of interest.”
Goel added, “Concerns have been raised by stakeholders regarding past positions taken (by the law firm) in matters relating to the territorial scope of Basmati GI. Without commenting on the merits of such issues, we believe these concerns deserve consideration before any final appointment is made.”
Basmati GI Territorial Dispute
The GI defines that Basmati rice is grown in the Indo-Gangetic plains. According to BRMEA, the law firm picked by Apeda questioned this definition and termed it “arbitrary.” It argued that “agro-climatic factors should prevail over historical and reputational considerations, and public perception has no ‘independent significance’ in GI law.” Garg said these propositions are “fundamentally inconsistent with the position consistently maintained by Apeda and the Government of India.”
The territorial scope has international implications, with Madhya Pradesh-linked petitioners, lawyers, and Pakistan having opposed India’s European Union application for Basmati GI, while Apeda has opposed Pakistan’s application.
| Issue | Apeda/Government Position | Law Firm’s Stated Position |
|---|---|---|
| Territorial scope of Basmati GI | Basmati originates from the specified Indo-Gangetic Plain area | Agro-climatic factors should prevail; current definition is “arbitrary”; public perception has no independent significance in GI law |
| Inclusion of Madhya Pradesh | Historically opposed | Represented petitioners favouring inclusion |
BEDF Rules and Governance
Garg referred to the BEDF rules, noting that rule 19.2.21 specifically empowers the Board to appoint and pay consultants and advisors. He argued that since the proposed law firm is a “strategic consultant and advisor to BEDF,” the board should have been involved in the selection. Rule 19.1 makes the board responsible for managing the society’s affairs and vests all powers for furthering its objectives.
The current terms of reference for Apeda and BEDF require the selected law firm to “formulate a strategy, advise on WTO and TRIPS issues, assist in regional trade agreements and FTAs, monitor international developments, represent India globally and act as a strategic custodian of India’s basmati doctrine.” The two export bodies contend that such critical responsibilities demand transparent selection with stakeholder input.