Competitor Cannot Challenge Grant of Registration under Insecticides Act

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale of the Supreme Court decided Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v. Dhanuka Agritech Ltd & Ors. (2026). The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Delhi High Court Division Bench’s judgment, and restored the registration certificate granted to Crystal Crop Protection under the Insecticides Act, 1968.

What was the Background of Crystal Crop Protection Ltd v. Dhanuka Agritech Ltd (2026) Case? 

• The Registration Committee granted Crystal Crop Protection (the appellant) a registration certificate under Section 9(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. 
• The registration allowed the appellant to:  
  • import Halosulfuron methyl technical, and 
  • manufacture its formulation in India. 
• Dhanuka Agritech Ltd (the respondent), a commercial competitor, challenged the registration before the appellate/revisional authority under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act. 
• That challenge was rejected, and the respondent then approached the Delhi High Court. 
• The Single Judge upheld the registration granted to the appellant. 
• The Division Bench reversed that decision and quashed the registration certificate. 
• The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. 

Question before the Supreme Court: 

• Can a commercial competitor challenge the grant of a registration certificate to another company under Section 10 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and how far can a High Court go in judicial review of such a grant?

What were the Court’s Observations? 

On Section 10 of the Insecticides Act, 1968: 

• The Court said Section 10 provides an appeal only against a decision refusing registration or cancelling an existing registration. 
• A commercial competitor cannot use this provision to challenge a registration certificate granted to another company. 
• Section 10 applies only to decisions of refusal or cancellation, and these decisions must be communicated to the person who is entitled to challenge them. 

On the expression “any person aggrieved”: 

• The respondent relied on the words “any person aggrieved” in Section 10. 
• The Court rejected this argument. It held that the expression must be read in the context of the specific decisions against which the provision allows an appeal. 
• The respondent, as a commercial competitor, therefore could not be treated as “a person aggrieved” entitled to appeal under Section 10. 

On the limits of judicial review: 

• The Court said judicial review of executive decisions is limited, especially decisions granting licences to commercial entities. 
• The Division Bench had overturned the conclusions of the statutory authorities, which the Single Judge had already upheld. 
• In doing so, the High Court had in effect acted as an appellate authority and gone beyond the permissible limits of judicial review. 

On the scrutiny done before registration: 

• The Court took note of the Union Government’s affidavit, which set out the scrutiny carried out before the registration was granted. 
• This included laboratory testing, which found the product’s purity to be 98.53%. 

Decision: 

• The Court held that the High Court’s judgment could not be sustained, either in law or on the merits. 
• The appeal was allowed. 
• The registration certificate granted to the appellant was restored.

What are Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Insecticides Act, 1968? 

About: 

• The Insecticides Act, 1968 regulates the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides. Its aim is to prevent risk to human beings and animals. 
• The Act sets up the Central Insecticides Board to advise the Government, and the Registration Committee to register insecticides. 

Section 9 – Registration of Insecticides: 

• Any person who wants to import or manufacture an insecticide must apply to the Registration Committee to have it registered. 
• Section 9(3): The Committee may register the insecticide after an inquiry, once it is satisfied about the insecticide’s efficacy and its safety to human beings and animals. It then allots a registration number and issues a certificate of registration. 
• If the Committee refuses registration, it must communicate its decision to the applicant. 

Section 10 – Appeal: 

• Section 10 provides for an appeal to the Central Government against decisions of the Registration Committee. 
• As the Supreme Court interpreted it in this case, the appeal lies only against:  
  • a decision refusing registration, or 
  • a decision cancelling an existing registration (cancellation is dealt with under Section 14). 
• The appeal must be filed within the prescribed period, which runs from the date the decision is communicated to the person concerned. 

Section 11 – Revision: 

• Section 11 gives the Central Government revisional powers over proceedings of the Registration Committee under the Act. 

Key Features: 

• Registration is mandatory: No insecticide can be imported or manufactured without registration under the Act. 
• Safety and efficacy are the tests: The Registration Committee decides registration based on scientific scrutiny of the insecticide’s efficacy and its safety to humans and animals. 
• Limited right of appeal: The appeal under Section 10 is designed for a person affected by refusal or cancellation of registration, usually the applicant or the holder of the registration. 
• No locus for competitors: A commercial competitor is not a “person aggrieved” under Section 10 and cannot appeal against registration granted to a rival.