Last week, Union Minister of State for Commerce Jitin Prasada unveiled India’s first AI-based Basmati Paddy Survey project (2026–2028), an ambitious initiative to be implemented by APEDA covering approximately 4 million hectares.

This target has sparked significant industry debate, as APEDA’s own 2023 report estimated the total Basmati cultivation area at only 2.14 million hectares, less than half of the new project’s scope. The discrepancy has fuelled intense discussions regarding a potential expansion of the current Basmati Geographical Indication (GI) zone, a move that remains contested given that the legal inclusion of Madhya Pradesh is still sub-judice. By deploying AI across such a vastly expanded territory, the government appears to be preparing for a broader mapping of aromatic rice production, even as the official boundaries of the traditional Basmati belt remain a matter of legal and regional contention.

Besides, there are issues with regard to collaboration with a particular industry body, whose representative is also a Board member of the Basmati Export Development Foundation (BEDF), since the funding of the project has to come from the corpus of BEDF. To generate funds for BEDF, APEDA currently charges ₹70 per tonne from Basmati exporters for registration of contract, which is mandatory before allowing shipments.

The Basmati Paddy Survey project (2026–2028) will cover nearly 4 million hectares, collect data from over 150,000 ground-truth points and engage with more than 500,000 farmers, the government statement said. The aim is to support precise crop assessment, varietal identification, scientific advisory services and improved export planning.

Industry sources said that till Kharif 2023, APEDA was conducting the Basmati survey every year, except during the Covid pandemic, and it discontinued the survey from 2024 under pressure from a few exporters. The sources also said that the agency which conducted the survey was requested to include the non-GI areas, which it politely refused since the crop grown in those areas does not qualify to be called Basmati legally.

Queries sent to APEDA for reply were not answered till the time of writing.

The Indian Rice Exporters’ Federation (IREF) said it was not approached by APEDA so far for any collaboration for a crop survey and, given a chance, it would like to partner for the initiative. “We plan to approach APEDA for a joint collaboration and involving IREF in the entire process for carrying out the proposed Crop Survey which is the main pivot for well-conceived policy decisions,” said Vinod Kaul, director general of IREF. Precise data and statistics about production can be generated only through a structured crop survey, he added.

However, IREF favoured a crop survey in non-GI areas as well. “It would be beneficial to have Basmati crop survey report in two segments — Basmati rice cultivated in the GI Area and Basmati rice varieties cultivated in other than GI area,” Kaul said.

Historically, the actual area sown with pure Basmati varieties in India is typically around 2.1 million hectares. However, the GI region for Basmati — which covers parts of Punjab, Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu and Kashmir — spans a much larger area, over 6 million hectares.

After prolonged hearings for years, the Chennai-based GI registry in February 2016 issued the GI certificate to APEDA for Basmati rice, under which the recognised area included some districts of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi. The Order was upheld by the GI appellate tribunal, dismissing the appeal of the Madhya Pradesh government for the state’s inclusion.

When the matter reached the Madras High Court in 2020, the MP state government was asked why it did not approach the Registrar of Trade Marks seeking cancellation or modification in the GI Certificate issued to APEDA since it was a statutory remedy. The High Court dismissed the petition. But MP moved the Supreme Court, which in September 2021 set aside the High Court order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, preferably within three months. Since then, the matter is pending.

Published on May 6, 2026