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
Guest previewThis 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 post‑2005 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/benefit‑sharing requirements) to determine practical limits on patenting biological processes or seeds.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This statement analysis shows book citations, web sources and indirect clues. The first statement (S1) is open for preview.
Login with Google to unlock all statements.
This tab shows concrete study steps: what to underline in books, how to map current affairs, and how to prepare for similar questions.
Login with Google to unlock study guidance.
Discover the small, exam-centric ideas hidden in this question and where they appear in your books and notes.
Login with Google to unlock micro-concepts.
Access hidden traps, elimination shortcuts, and Mains connections that give you an edge on every question.
Login with Google to unlock The Vault.