Patent rights and public health: What are Bharat’s options?

Source: The post  “Patent rights and public health: What are Bharat’s options?’’ has been created, based on “J Sai Deepak writes | Patent rights and public health: What are Bharat’s options?” published in “Indian Express” on 19th January 2026.

UPSC Syllabus: GS Paper-3- Governance

Context: India is obligated under the TRIPS Agreement to protect patent rights, while simultaneously retaining the sovereign right to safeguard public health. The key challenge lies in preventing abuse of patent monopolies, particularly through evergreening, without discouraging genuine innovation.

Patent Rights and Prevention of Evergreening

1. India’s patent regime prevents the grant of patents for minor modifications that do not enhance therapeutic efficacy.
2. This ensures that pharmaceutical companies do not obtain repeated monopolies over substantially the same invention.
3. Such measures are TRIPS-compliant and do not amount to protectionism.

Legal Options Available to India

1. Section 47(4) of the Patents Act allows governments to import patented medicines without the patentee’s consent for public use.
2. Section 66 empowers the Central Government to revoke patents in public interest if they are prejudicial to the public.
3. Section 92A enables compulsory licensing for manufacture and export of medicines to countries lacking manufacturing capacity.
4. Section 102 permits acquisition of patents by the government for public purposes under eminent domain.
5. Abusive patentees can also be proceeded against under the Competition Act, 2002 for abuse of dominant position.

Challenges in Using These Options

1. Political and diplomatic pressures from developed countries discourage aggressive use of TRIPS flexibilities.
2. Concerns over foreign investment and trade retaliation create policy hesitation.
3. Limited institutional capacity and lack of proactive patent scrutiny reduce effective enforcement.
4. Lengthy administrative and legal processes delay timely intervention.
5. Balancing innovation incentives with affordability remains a persistent policy dilemma.

Way Forward

1. The Central and State Governments should formulate clear, transparent patent policies that integrate public health objectives with intellectual property enforcement.
2. Patent authorities must proactively scrutinise patents in critical sectors such as pharmaceuticals and agriculture to detect evergreening and abusive practices at an early stage.
3. The government should use TRIPS-compliant tools such as compulsory licensing, government use and patent revocation in a timely and calibrated manner to ensure affordable access to essential medicines.
4. Institutional capacity of patent offices, competition authorities and enforcement agencies should be strengthened through specialised training and coordination.
5. India should continue engaging diplomatically to defend its public health-oriented patent framework while reassuring investors that genuine innovation will be protected.

Conclusion: Patent protection and public health are not competing goals but complementary obligations under India’s constitutional framework and international commitments. While India has incorporated several TRIPS-compliant safeguards within its patent regime, their underutilisation has limited the country’s ability to ensure timely and affordable access to essential medicines. A calibrated and transparent use of these legal tools, combined with strong institutional capacity and policy clarity, can deter abusive patent practices without undermining genuine innovation. By aligning intellectual property governance with public health priorities, India can uphold its role as the pharmacy of the Global South while remaining a credible destination for innovation and investment.

Question: Patent rights must be balanced with public health imperatives. Discuss India’s legal options under the Patents Act, 1970 and the challenges in using them effectively.

Source: Indian Express