They claim the decision was ‘arbitrary’ without consulting  stakeholders and exporters, but APEDA sources say due process has been followed.

By Subramani Ra Mancombu

Two rice exporters’ organisations have urged the Commerce Ministry to reconsider the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (Apdea) decision to “arbitrarily” appoint a new law firm to handle global cases on basmati geographical indication (GI) and intellectual property rights (IPR).

However, Apeda sources said the law firm has been engaged after due process of tender by an expert selection panel.

The All-India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA) and The Basmati Rice Millers and Exporters Association (Punjab), or BRMEA, in separate letters to Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal and Apeda Chairman Abhishek Dev, said the new law firm has been selected without consulting stakeholders and exporters.

Both organisations said their representations do not question the law firm’s professional competence and were not against the law firm. One of the main reasons for raising concern was the law firm’s “conflict of interest.” 

Selection by expert panel

“Our concern relates to 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 AIREA President Satish Goel. 

“… it concerns the preservation of India’s long-standing legal doctrine, international credibility and the substantial public and stakeholder investment made over several decades,” said Bal Krishan Garg, President of BRMEA.

Conflict of interest

Garg said one of the most contentious issues in recent years has been the demand to include Madhya Pradesh regions in the Basmati GI area.

The law firm selected by Apeda had represented petitioners for the inclusion of some regions in the State where Basmati rice is grown. 

Apeda had been “historically opposing” the inclusion of Madhya Pradesh regions in the GI area for Basmati rice. 

 “Any firm representing parties favouring the expansion of basmati rice growing area while simultaneously advising Apeda is in conflict of interest,” he said.

Basmati GI territorial scope

“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,” said AIREA’s Goel.

The GI defines that Basmati rice is grown in the Indo-Gangetic plains. The law firm, picked by Apeda, questioned this and termed it arbitrary. It had also said that agro-climatic factors should prevail over historical and reputational considerations, and public perception has no “independent significance” in GI law, said BRMEA’s Garg. 

“These propositions (of the law firm) are fundamentally inconsistent with the position consistently maintained by Apeda and the Government of India,” he said.

Madhya Pradesh-linked petitioners, lawyers and Pakistan have opposed India’s EU application, while Apeda has opposed Pakistan’s application. 

BEDF rules

“Apeda’s international position is built on the fact that basmati originates from the specified Indo-Gangetic Plain area,” said the BRMEA president.  

Referring to the BEDF rules, Goyal said rule 19.2.21 specifically empowers the Board to appoint and pay consultants and advisors. The proposed law firm is a strategic consultant and advisor to BEDF, and, therefore, it should have been involved in the selection.

Rule 19.1 of the BEDF rules makes the board responsible for the management and administration of the society’s affairs and vests in it all powers for the furtherance of its objectives, he said. 

Garg said the current Apeda and BEDF terms of reference 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. 

“Current assignment proposed by APEDA and BEDF goes well beyond conventional litigation and requires complete alignment with India’s long-standing policy …,” he said. 

Perception of division

Any perception that India is internally divided on territorial boundaries, historical reputation and legal foundations of Basmati could be exploited by adverse parties, particularly Pakistan. and may weaken India’s position in ongoing and future proceedings, said the BRMEA president.

Stating that Basmati exports contribute ₹65,000 crore annually to the exchequer, AIREA urged Apeda to keep the appointment in “abeyance”, pending consideration by the BEDF board. 

“If the appointment letter has been issued, it may kindly be placed on immediate hold, and no further action may be taken until the concerns raised herein are duly considered,” said Goyal.  

BRMEA urged the Commerce Minister to cancel the appointment. “Also, the process of IPR law firm selection by APEDA/BEDF may be driven through an empowered methodology such constituting an independent panel of experts in Geographical Indications, WTO and TRIPS law,” said Garg. 

Published Date: June 16, 2026