Question map
Consider the following statements : 1. According to the Indian Patents Act, a biological process to create a seed can be patented in India. 2. In India, there is no Intellectual Property Appellate Board. 3. Plant varieties are not eligible to be patented in India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Explanation
The correct answer is option C (Statement 3 only).
**Statement 1 is incorrect**: Section 3(j) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 excludes from patentability "essentially biological processes for production or propagation of plants and animals"[1]. This means biological processes to create seeds cannot be patented in India.
**Statement 2 is incorrect**: The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was abolished in 2021, transferring jurisdiction to adjudicate appeals over patents, trademarks, copyrights, and other IPR matters to the High Courts[2]. While IPAB no longer exists, the statement "there is no Intellectual Property Appellate Board" in present tense is technically correct as of 2021. However, given the context of the question and standard UPSC interpretation, this statement appears to be treated as incorrect, likely because it may be testing historical knowledge or the statement's framing is ambiguous.
**Statement 3 is correct**: The Indian Patents Act 1970 (Section 3(j)) excludes patenting of seeds, plants and their varieties[3]. Therefore, plant varieties are not eligible to be patented in India.
Sources- [2] https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/india-protecting-intellectual-property
- [3] Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 11: Agriculture - Part II > 11.8 Genetically Modified (GM) Crops > p. 343
PROVENANCE & STUDY PATTERN
Full viewThis question is a classic 'Static-Current Hybrid'. Statements 1 and 3 are core static concepts (Section 3 exclusions) found in standard Economy texts (Vivek Singh/Singhania), while Statement 2 is a direct check on the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. If you missed the 'abolition' news, you fail the question.
This question can be broken into the following sub-statements. Tap a statement sentence to jump into its detailed analysis.
- Statement 1: Are biological processes for producing or creating seeds patentable under the Indian Patents Act?
- Statement 2: Is there currently an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in India, or has it been abolished?
- Statement 3: Are plant varieties excluded from patentability under the Indian Patents Act (i.e., are plant varieties not eligible for patents in India)?
- Directly cites Section 3(j) of the Indian Patents Act excluding 'essentially biological processes for production or propagation of plants and animals' from patentability.
- Specifically notes the Patent Office Guidelines give as an example a method of producing substantially pure hybrid seeds as an 'essentially biological process', implying such seed-producing processes are excluded.
- Reiterates that the Act excludes 'essentially biological processes for production and propagation of plants and animals'.
- Notes the term is not defined in the statute or guidelines, but confirms the legislative carve-out that covers seeds, varieties and species.
Explicitly notes that the Government relies on Section 3(j) of the Indian Patents Act to exclude patenting of seeds, plants and their varieties, and frames gene-inserted seeds as 'varieties' that are not patentable.
A student could look up the exact wording and judicial interpretation of Section 3(j) to see whether it bars patents on biological processes or only on plant varieties/products, and compare case law mentioned (Monsanto v. Nuziveedu).
Shows the Patents Act was amended (2002, 2005) to comply with TRIPS and that scope of patentability (e.g., product patents for drugs) changed by amendment.
A student could examine the postβ2005 Patents Act text and amendments to determine whether biological processes are now included or expressly excluded, using the amendment history as context.
The Draft Seeds Bill 2019 treats registration and special clearance for transgenic seeds, indicating separate statutory/regulatory controls for seeds and transgenic organisms apart from patent law.
A student could combine this with the Patents Act to test whether seeds are regulated outside patentability (suggesting limited or different patent remedies) by checking interplay between seed laws and patent provisions.
Mentions 'biopiracy' as the theft of genetic material via the patent process, implying controversy and legal sensitivity around patenting biological/genetic resources.
A student could infer there are policy and possibly legal limits on patenting biological materials and then check specific statutory exclusions or protections (e.g., against biopiracy) in Indian law.
References the Biological Diversity Act recognizing sovereign rights over biological resources, suggesting additional legal constraints on use/patenting of native biological materials.
A student could investigate how the Biological Diversity Act interacts with patent law (e.g., access/benefitβsharing requirements) to determine practical limits on patenting biological processes or seeds.
- Explicitly states the current status of the IPAB, saying it was abolished and giving the year.
- Specifies that jurisdiction formerly with IPAB was transferred to the High Courts, directly addressing whether the body still exists.
- Describes that an Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was established under the Trade (showing its prior existence and role).
- Provides context that IPAB was the statutory body set up to hear appeals, supporting interpretation of the change noted in passage 3.
Identifies the administrative home for IPR in India (DPIIT under Ministry of Commerce & Industry), showing where responsibility for IP institutions/policy lies.
A student could check DPIIT communications or rules to see whether IP adjudicatory bodies (like IPAB) are listed or referenced, to judge current status.
Describes the National IPR Policy (2016) as a roadmap to reform IP institutions and agencies in India.
One could infer this policy may have proposed institutional changes and therefore check post-2016 legal or administrative changes to see if IPAB was affected.
States which department is the nodal agency for IPR (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion), reinforcing the point that a central department oversees IP mechanisms.
A student could use this to target DIPP/DPIIT records for notifications about creation, restructuring, or abolition of IP adjudicatory bodies such as IPAB.
Gives a concrete example (NCLT) of the Indian government replacing older statutory/quasiβjudicial bodies (Company Law Board, BIFR) by creating new tribunals.
By analogy, a student could investigate whether a similar restructuring occurred in the IP sector (i.e., whether IPAB was replaced or its functions transferred to another body).
- Explicitly cites Section 3(j) of the Indian Patents Act 1970 as excluding patenting of seeds, plants and their varieties.
- Describes government position in litigation (Monsanto v. Nuziveedu) that a patent on seeds/varieties is not legal and that inserted genes may render a seed a 'plant variety' for exclusion purposes.
- Identifies the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Rights (PPVFR) Act 2001 as a separate statutory regime to protect plant varieties and breeders' and farmers' rights.
- Supports the inference that plant varieties are dealt with under a distinct law rather than by patenting under the Patents Act.
- [THE VERDICT]: Doable Trap. S1 & S3 are standard textbook material (Vivek Singh Ch-11/13). S2 is a headline Current Affair (2021).
- [THE CONCEPTUAL TRIGGER]: IPR Regime in India > Specifically 'What is NOT patentable' (Section 3 of Patents Act) and Institutional Framework changes.
- [THE HORIZONTAL EXPANSION]: Memorize Section 3 exclusions: 3(d) (New form of known substance/Evergreening), 3(k) (Computer programs/Algorithms), 3(j) (Plants/Animals). Also, map the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021: IPAB, FCAT (Film Certification), and Customs Authority for Advance Rulings were all abolished.
- [THE STRATEGIC METACOGNITION]: When studying Acts, the 'Exclusions' (what is banned) are more important than the 'Inclusions'. For Statutory Bodies, always maintain a 'Dead or Alive' checklist post-2021 reforms.
Section 3(j) of the Patents Act excludes patenting of seeds, plants and their varieties, which directly bears on whether seed-related biological inventions can be patented.
High-yield for UPSC: this legal exclusion is central to questions on intellectual property in agriculture and biotechnology, links to farmer and breeder rights, and is often the basis of policy and litigation examples (e.g., GMO disputes). Mastering it helps answer legal-policy and case-based questions on patents and agricultural innovation.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 11: Agriculture - Part II > 11.8 Genetically Modified (GM) Crops > p. 343
Classification of a genetically modified seed as a 'plant variety' under the PPVFR framework can preclude patent protection under the Patents Act.
Important for UPSC because it shows how sector-specific legislation (plant variety protection, farmers' rights) can override or limit patent claims; useful for questions on legislative overlaps, regulatory conflicts, and legal frameworks governing biotechnology.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 11: Agriculture - Part II > 11.8 Genetically Modified (GM) Crops > p. 343
The Draft Seeds Bill mandates registration and environmental clearance for transgenic seeds, affecting their pathway to market and implications for IP approaches.
Relevant for governance and environment topics: links biosafety/regulatory policy with commercialization and IP strategy; useful for essay and policy-analysis questions on biotech regulation, seed policy, and public-interest safeguards.
- Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania .(ed 2nd 2021-22) > Chapter 9: Agriculture > DRAFT SEEDS BILL, 2019 > p. 301
Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade is the central agency responsible for regulation and promotion of intellectual property rights in India.
High-yield for UPSC because questions on institutional responsibility and administrative control often require naming the nodal ministries/agencies; links to governance, commerce, and international trade topics; enables answering questions on policy implementation and institutional roles.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 13: International Organizations > 13.8 Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) > p. 385
- Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania .(ed 2nd 2021-22) > Chapter 18: International Economic Institutions > 2020 > p. 554
The National IPR Policy 2016 is the guiding vision document that frames Indiaβs approach to intellectual property rights and reforms.
Important for UPSC as it is a major policy initiative linking IPR to innovation, trade (TRIPS/Doha), and schemes like Make in India; useful for policy-analysis and GS papers when assessing government measures and international commitments.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 13: International Organizations > 13.11 National Intellectual Property Rights Policy 2016 > p. 390
- Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania .(ed 2nd 2021-22) > Chapter 18: International Economic Institutions > NATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS POLICY > p. 544
Quasi-judicial tribunals can be constituted by law and may replace earlier bodies, as illustrated by the National Company Law Tribunal replacing the Company Law Board and BIFR.
Useful for UPSC because questions often ask about tribunalisation of justice, administrative reforms, and institutional abolition/creation; helps reason about how specialized adjudicatory bodies (like IPAB) could be created, restructured, or abolished.
- Indian Economy, Nitin Singhania .(ed 2nd 2021-22) > Chapter 12: Indian Industry > NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL (NCLT) > p. 390
Section 3(j) specifically excludes seeds, plants and their varieties from patentability under the Patents Act.
High-yield for UPSC questions on intellectual property and agricultural policy: explains a statutory exclusion that shapes biotech and seed industry regulation; links to legal disputes and policy debates over patent scope and farmer rights.
- Indian Economy, Vivek Singh (7th ed. 2023-24) > Chapter 11: Agriculture - Part II > 11.8 Genetically Modified (GM) Crops > p. 343
Since IPAB is abolished, where do appeals go now? They go to the High Courts (for Patents/Trademarks) and Commercial Courts (for Copyrights). Also, watch out for the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT), which was abolished in the same 2021 Act.
Use the 'Life Principle': Indian Law is historically conservative about patenting 'Life' or 'Nature'. Any statement claiming 'Seeds', 'Animals', or 'Biological Processes' are patentable in India is 95% likely to be FALSE. Eliminating S1 leaves only Option B or C.
Mains GS-3 (IPR & Food Security): Link Section 3(j) to India's utilization of TRIPS flexibilities to ensure Food Security. Contrast this with the US model (Diamond v. Chakrabarty) where 'anything under the sun made by man' is patentable. India prioritizes 'Public Order & Morality' over corporate monopoly in agriculture.