The Supreme Court on Monday issued notices to the Centre and its health ministry on a writ petition challenging several key provisions of the second amendment to the Patents Act 1970. |
Section 5[2] of the amended Act introduced product patentability in 2002, whereas the original law allowed patents for processes and methods only. This provision is slated to become operative from January 1 next year. |
The other provisions under challenge are Sections 24 [A] to [F]. These introduced the concept of exclusive marketing rights under which the patent holder would have the exclusive right to market products in this country for a certain period, solely on the basis of a patent granted in any country and without any investigation by any Indian authority into the patentability of the product. |
A bench consisting of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice C K Thakker issued notices on the petition moved by a society called the People's Livelihood Development Trust. |
According to the Trust, the prices of essential drugs were very low in this country during the 1970 Act. However, with the introduction of the new concepts under pressure from western pharma companies, prices are likely to shoot up. The Constitution guarantees access to health and right to life in Article 21. |
Therefore, the government has a duty to keep down prices so that it is within reach of the masses. |
It should encourage competition to control prices. However, after the amendment, the foreign monopolies would be free to fix their own prices, which would be beyond the reach of people at large . |
The petitioner further warns that the third amendment to the Patents Act, now pending in Parliament is more damaging as it would consolidate the product patent regime. |
It would then be a blanket product patent regime. Even without the product patent regime, various multinational corporations try to sell their products at a price substantially higher than domestic companies. |
However, after the new amendment, India is bound to grant automatic monopolistic right to patent holders. Indian authorities are precluded from considering whether such a drug is patentable or not, it is argued. |