One could contend that India’s history of intellectual property perhaps provides what might be considered valuable insights into international IP reform for sustainability. India’s transition from the Patents Act 1970, which excluded product patents for pharmaceuticals,[1]to TRIPS conformity via the Patents Act 2005,[2] seems to illustrate the intertwined negotiations between the domestic policy objectives associated with its constitutional obligations and international undertakings. In the upcoming paragraph, you will learn more about the stewardship shift from monopoly.
The right to life, as articulated in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution,[3] has now been judicially interpreted as encompassing access to healthcare,[4], creating what could be defined as a constitutional framework that expresses an inherent criticism of purely monopolistic approaches to important patents. Combined with the Directive Principles in Article 39(b) of the Indian Constitution, which mandate the distribution of resources in order to “subserve the common good,”[5]this constitutional backdrop appears to furnish normative underpinnings for stewardship-focused thought that is not necessarily present in other jurisdictions.
India’s recent proposal for a TRIPS waiver during COVID-19 [6]combined with our experiences of compulsory licensing and the protection of traditional knowledge, suggests that constitutional legal imperatives may redirect the evolution of international IP frameworks toward an increasing focus on sustainability and access.
Landmark Cases And Stewardship Principles
The Novartis v Union of India case arguably demonstrates how Indian courts practice patent law in ways that not only question traditional monopolistic thinking [7] but also offer a principled stance. The Supreme Court’s dismissal of Novartis’ Glivec patent applications by reasoning that improved therapeutic effect under Section 3(d) is rejected and that the duty of increasing the scope of the patent merely to prolong patent life, rather than allowing such improvement to have true therapeutic effect in a significant way, seems to lay claim to what could be referred to as stewardship principles, questioning whether minor changes to the prior art are sufficient to claim a full monopolistic patent.
Similarly, the Bayer compulsory licensing judgment,[8]where, for the first time, the Controller General granted India’s first compulsory license for Sorafenib as a result of the public interest, seems to draw on and demonstrate Indian IP law’s ability to operationalize stewardship concepts. Compared to “a death sentence to the individual seeking access to the patent drug,” the decision seemed to uphold access, considering affordability over full patent rights, signaling a regime in which monopolistic control would drift away for larger social imperatives in another time and place.
The Roche v Cipla case [9]provides instances of similar reasoning, where the interim relief sought by Cipla in the Delhi High Court seems to enmesh issues of patent protection and access to medicines for public health purposes, suggesting something akin to judicial recognition of competing constitutional and commercial imperatives.
Traditional Knowledge And Alternative IP Models
India’s Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) program arguably offers one example of what could be viewed as a pioneering effort to protect collective knowledge systems and implicitly guard against biopiracy.[10] TKDL documents traditional knowledge of medicinal properties with the records coded according to international patent classifications. TKDL demonstrates how concepts of traditional stewardship could be operationalized in contemporary intellectual property law without validly granting an individual monopoly.
The TKDL paradigm seems to protect community knowledge through defensive publications rather than protecting ownership of knowledge by positive patents. It may lend credence to the concept that there are alternative models of intellectual property governance that may be more compatible with sustainability goals. This framework, however, seems to also accept the notion that knowledge is collectively held rather than owned by an individual, echoing traditional Indian notions of knowledge based on philosophical concepts where vidya (knowledge) is increased through sharing rather than decreased.[11]
The Geographical Indications Act 2000[12] could further exemplify stewardship principles, protecting community-based traditional knowledge and their corresponding production methods without granting individuals a monopoly in the geographies. Darjeeling tea and Basmati rice acquire protection that benefits entire communities, rather than individuals with proprietorship status.
Green Patents And Sustainable Innovation
India’s 2016 Patent Fast-Track system for green technologies[13] could be regarded as an early step towards something approximating environmental stewardship in IP law. Shortening the time required for clean energy patents from five years to eighteen months, it shows a potential path for IP systems to align themselves more significantly with sustainable development through active promotion, rather than hindrance.
It seems relevant to consider the implications of the fast-track system alongside India’s renewable energy commitments under the Paris Agreement[14]:
By shortening patent pendency on solar, wind, and energy storage technologies, India appears to have acknowledged that climate urgency requires IP regimes to accelerate, rather than delay, deployment of green innovation.
Potentially, proposals regarding compulsory licensing of climate technologies could push this even further.[15] Given India’s constitutional obligations per Article 21 and Article 47 (improvement of public health),[16]there appears to be a legal rationale for treating climate technologies like essential medicines, where monopolistic control can yield to greater public interest considerations.
The Dark Side Of Legal Storytelling
Narrative-aware drafting faces key criticisms: ambiguity invites multiple interpretations, undermining legal certainty, as seen in the European Convention on Human Rights. Over-politicization risks turning legislative narratives into ideological manifestos, as in some recent Indian preambles. Balancing clarity and persuasion is difficult; narratives aid comprehension but must not sacrifice precision. International declarations like the UDHR illustrate these limits, with aspirational language that resists enforcement.
Charting Out The Future: A Narrative-aware Drafting Model
A robust model merges narrative principles with legal precision and is tested through public consultations for readability and impact. Collaboration between lawyers, linguists, sociologists, and communication experts ensures laws reflect lived realities, as with MGNREGA. Technology can enhance accessibility without losing accuracy. Legal education should build narrative literacy, preparing lawyers to navigate law as both a technical tool and a cultural narrative.
The End: Toward Narrative Democracy
Statutes convey not only legal commands; they embody narratives of the society that created them and influence the collective consciousness and individual behaviors. When the Indian Parliament passes anything into law, it is performing national storytelling, defining the narrative as it relates to citizenship, rights, responsibilities, and justice.
If legal narratives sufficiently bridge the distance between the law and society, they can help make legal systems and legal processes more accessible, legitimate, effective, and just. The difficulty is creating statutes that invoke narrative consciousness without compromising the statutory precision of the law, and giving legislative stories narrative and compelling integrity that the statute incorporates into guidelines, practices, and implementation.
As India’s democracy matures, legislatively drafted laws and legislation must advance beyond the procedural bounds of technical rulemaking toward narrative law-making with narrative consciousness. Part of this innovation is recognizing that every statute has an inherent purpose in answering key normative questions: What story does this law tell about the people who created it? Whose voices are elevated, respected, ignored, or silenced by it? What future does this matter envision?
“Every statute tells a story: whose story does the law choose to tell, and how effectively does it tell it?”
Authors’ Details: Arihant Chatterjee and Jiya Sankar, Final-year Law Students, Sister Nivedita University, Kolkata
Read Similar Article: Traditional Knowledge Digital Library: IPR Shield
[1]Patents Act 1970, s 5.
[2] Patents Act 2005, No 15 of 2005.
[3] Constitution of India 1950, art 21.
[4]Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity v State of West Bengal (1996) 4 SCC 37.
[5] Constitution of India 1950, art 39(b).
[6] Communication from India and South Africa, ‘Waiver from Certain Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the Prevention, Containment and Treatment of COVID-19’ WTO Doc IP/C/W/669 (2 October 2020).
[7]Novartis AG v Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 1.
[8]Bayer Corporation v Natco Pharma Limited Controller General of Patents Order No 45/2013.
[9]F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v Cipla Ltd (2016) 266 DLT 284.
[10] Traditional Knowledge Digital Library http://www.tkdl.res.in.
[11] See Vandana Shiva, Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge (South End Press 1997).
[12] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999.
[13] Controller General of Patents, ‘Fast Track Examination for Green Technology’ (2016).
[14] Paris Agreement (adopted 12 December 2015, entered into force 4 November 2016) UNTS No 54113.
[15] See Prashant Reddy, ‘Compulsory Licensing of Climate Change Technologies in India’ (2021) 16 J Intell Prop L & Practice 891.
[16] Constitution of India 1950, art 47.