There are two exporter associations that are not satisfied with the law firm selected for managing the IPRI and GI matters on behalf of APEDA. These exporter associations have communicated their concerns to the Ministry of Commerce. The Exporters' Committee states that this firm was arbitrarily appointed. APEDA authorities have asserted that this firm has been appointed after the completion of a tender procedure through a selection committee. Exporters believe this appointment will be detrimental to India's GI case. 

All India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA) and Basmati Rice Millers and Exporters Association (Punjab) (BRMEA) have both written to the Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal and chairman of APEDA, Abhishek Dev. In these letters, both the associations state that this law firm has been appointed without consulting the interests of exporters and other stakeholders. It needs to be emphasized that both these associations are not questioning the expertise or professional capabilities of this law firm.

According to Businessline, AIREA President Satish Goyal said, "Our concerns are regarding institutional governance, shareholder trust, and adherence to BEDF regulations related to the protection of the Basmati GI." BRMEA President Balkrishna Garg said that one of the most contentious issues in recent years has been the demand for inclusion of Madhya Pradesh in the Basmati GI zone.

The BRMEA president alleged that the law firm selected by APEDA had previously represented petitioners seeking inclusion of certain areas of Madhya Pradesh in the Basmati GI zone, while APEDA has been opposing the inclusion of areas in Madhya Pradesh in the Basmati GI zone.

AIREA president Satish Goyal said that some stakeholders have raised concerns about the law firm's previous stance regarding the geographical scope of the Basmati GI. He said, "We are not commenting on these issues, but these concerns should be considered before the final appointment." According to the GI definition, Basmati rice is produced in the Indo-Gangetic Plains, but the law firm selected by APEDA challenged this basis, calling it arbitrary.

The law firm argued that agro-climatic factors should be prioritized over historical identity and reputation in GI determination. Furthermore, public perception has no independent significance in GI law. Garg of BRMEA said this argument contradicts the official stance consistently taken by APEDA and the Indian government.

The petitioners from Madhya Pradesh, their lawyers, and Pakistan have opposed India's Basmati GI application in the European Union (EU). On the other hand, APEDA has opposed Pakistan's application. Garg said that APEDA's entire argument internationally rests on the premise that the origin of Basmati rice must be determined. in the Indo-Gangetic region.

Citing the BEDF rules, Satish Goyal stated that Rule 19.2.21 empowers the Board to appoint and pay advisors and consultants. Since the proposed law firm will be the strategic advisor to BEDF, the BEDF Board should have been involved in its selection. He added that Rule 19.1 vests the Board with full responsibility for the management and administration of the organization, with all powers to further its objectives.

BRMEA President Balkrishna Garg stated that the responsibility proposed by APEDA is far greater than ordinary litigation and requires full alignment with India's long-standing policy. He warned that if the message is conveyed that India is divided on the geographical boundaries, historical reputation, and legal basis of Basmati, the opposition, especially Pakistan, could exploit this. He argued that this could weaken India's position in current and future international matters related to the Basmati GI.

There are two exporter associations that are not satisfied with the law firm selected for managing the IPRI and GI matters on behalf of APEDA. These exporter associations have communicated their concerns to the Ministry of Commerce. The Exporters' Committee states that this firm was arbitrarily appointed. APEDA authorities have asserted that this firm has been appointed after the completion of a tender procedure through a selection committee. Exporters believe this appointment will be detrimental to India's GI case. 

All India Rice Exporters Association (AIREA) and Basmati Rice Millers and Exporters Association (Punjab) (BRMEA) have both written to the Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal and chairman of APEDA, Abhishek Dev. In these letters, both the associations state that this law firm has been appointed without consulting the interests of exporters and other stakeholders. It needs to be emphasized that both these associations are not questioning the expertise or professional capabilities of this law firm.

According to Businessline, AIREA President Satish Goyal said, "Our concerns are regarding institutional governance, shareholder trust, and adherence to BEDF regulations related to the protection of the Basmati GI." BRMEA President Balkrishna Garg said that one of the most contentious issues in recent years has been the demand for inclusion of Madhya Pradesh in the Basmati GI zone.

The BRMEA president alleged that the law firm selected by APEDA had previously represented petitioners seeking inclusion of certain areas of Madhya Pradesh in the Basmati GI zone, while APEDA has been opposing the inclusion of areas in Madhya Pradesh in the Basmati GI zone.

AIREA president Satish Goyal said that some stakeholders have raised concerns about the law firm's previous stance regarding the geographical scope of the Basmati GI. He said, "We are not commenting on these issues, but these concerns should be considered before the final appointment." According to the GI definition, Basmati rice is produced in the Indo-Gangetic Plains, but the law firm selected by APEDA challenged this basis, calling it arbitrary.

The law firm argued that agro-climatic factors should be prioritized over historical identity and reputation in GI determination. Furthermore, public perception has no independent significance in GI law. Garg of BRMEA said this argument contradicts the official stance consistently taken by APEDA and the Indian government.

The petitioners from Madhya Pradesh, their lawyers, and Pakistan have opposed India's Basmati GI application in the European Union (EU). On the other hand, APEDA has opposed Pakistan's application. Garg said that APEDA's entire argument internationally rests on the premise that the origin of Basmati rice must be determined. in the Indo-Gangetic region.

Citing the BEDF rules, Satish Goyal stated that Rule 19.2.21 empowers the Board to appoint and pay advisors and consultants. Since the proposed law firm will be the strategic advisor to BEDF, the BEDF Board should have been involved in its selection. He added that Rule 19.1 vests the Board with full responsibility for the management and administration of the organization, with all powers to further its objectives.

BRMEA President Balkrishna Garg stated that the responsibility proposed by APEDA is far greater than ordinary litigation and requires full alignment with India's long-standing policy. He warned that if the message is conveyed that India is divided on the geographical boundaries, historical reputation, and legal basis of Basmati, the opposition, especially Pakistan, could exploit this. He argued that this could weaken India's position in current and future international matters related to the Basmati GI.