Biopiracy and GMOS in India: Legal Imperatives for Protecting Traditional Knowledge under Patent Law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53573/rhimrj.2026.v13n06.001Keywords:
Biopiracy, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), Traditional Knowledge, Patent Law, Biodiversity Protection, TKDLAbstract
Biopiracy and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have emerged as significant challenges in the interface between intellectual property rights, biodiversity conservation, and traditional knowledge protection in India. The commercialization of biological resources and indigenous knowledge by multinational corporations has raised concerns regarding unauthorized patenting and inequitable benefit-sharing. India, endowed with rich biodiversity and diverse traditional knowledge systems, has witnessed several instances where patents were sought over products and practices long known to local communities. This paper critically examines the legal framework governing biopiracy and GMOs in India, with particular emphasis on patent law, the Biological Diversity Act, and the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL). It evaluates the effectiveness of existing legal safeguards in preventing misappropriation of traditional knowledge and ensuring community rights. The study further explores policy reforms necessary to strengthen protection mechanisms while balancing innovation, sustainable development, and farmers’ interests.
References
Graham Dutfield, Intellectual Property, Biogenetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge 3 (Earthscan, London, 2004).
Ministry of Environment and Forests, India’s Second National Biodiversity Action Plan 1 (Government of India, New Delhi, 2002) available at https://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/NBAP-2002.pdf (last visited Jul. 3, 2025)
Anil K. Gupta, "Rewarding Traditional Knowledge and Contemporary Grassroots Creativity: The Role of Intellectual Property Protection", 32(27) Economic and Political Weekly 1662 (1997).
Vandana Shiva, Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge 23 (South End Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997)
Carlos M. Correa, "Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property: Issues and Options Surrounding the Protection of Traditional Knowledge", The Quaker United Nations Office 5 (2001) available at https://quno.org/sites/default/files/resources/QUNO-Traditional-Knowledge-2001.pdf (last visited Jul. 3, 2025).
The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, India Code (1970), §§ 3(b), 3(j), 3(p).
The Biological Diversity Act, No. 18 of 2003, India Code (2003), §§ 3–7, 18.
V.K. Gupta, "Protecting Traditional Knowledge: The Indian Experience", 13(3) Journal of Intellectual Property Rights 231 (2008).
A. Ramanathan, "The Protection of Traditional Knowledge in India: Issues and Challenges", 18(1) Indian Journal of Law and Technology 44 (2022).
Vandana Shiva, Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge 21 (South End Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997).
David Koepsell, Who Owns You? The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes 14 (Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 2009)
Suman Sahai, "Bt Brinjal: The First Genetically Modified Food Crop Released in India", 45(10) Economic and Political Weekly 23 (2010).
The Biological Diversity Act, No. 18 of 2003, India Code (2003), §§ 3 & 6.
National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), “Press Release on Bt Brinjal Biopiracy Case”, Chennai (October 2012) available at https://nbaindia.org
Kshitij Urs & Shalini Bhutani, “Regulatory Chaos: Bt Brinjal and the Inadequacy of Biosafety Governance in India”, 1(2) Asian Biotechnology and Development Review 15 (2009)
Ministry of Environment and Forests, Decision on Commercial Release of Bt Brinjal (New Delhi, Feb. 9, 2010) available at https://moef.gov.in
Anil K. Gupta, “How RiceTec Got Basmati Patents and What We Can Learn from It”, 35(14) Economic and Political Weekly 117 (2000).
The Patents Act, No. 39 of 1970, India Code (1970), § 3(b).
Ibid., § 3(j).
Ibid., § 3(p).
Convention on Biological Diversity, June 5, 1992, 1760 U.N.T.S. 79 (entered into force Dec. 29, 1993).
The Biological Diversity Act, No. 18 of 2003, India Code (2003), §§ 3 & 6.
National Biodiversity Authority (NBA), “Press Release on Bt Brinjal Biopiracy Case”, Chennai (Oct. 2012) available at https://nbaindia.org
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, No. 53 of 2001, India Code (2001), § 26.
V.K. Gupta, “Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL): A Tool for Protecting India’s Traditional Knowledge from Biopiracy”, 13 World Patent Information 3 (2010).
European Patent Office (EPO), Case No. 436257 (Neem Fungicide Revocation Decision), available at https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t950001ep1.html
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Patent No. 5,401,504 (Turmeric) (revoked 1997), cited in Anil Gupta, “Biopiracy and Traditional Knowledge: The Turmeric and Neem Cases,” 2(1) J. World Intell. Prop. 37 (1999).
National Biodiversity Authority, Press Release on Bt Brinjal Biopiracy Case (2011), available at http://nbaindia.org
Rahul Vats & Prabhash Ranjan, “Bt Brinjal and Biopiracy: Re-examining India's GMO Policy,” 45(8) Economic & Political Weekly 10 (2013).
Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 5541/2020 (Del HC), order dated Dec. 18, 2020.
IPAB, Order No. OA/31/2010/PT/CH, in the matter of patent opposition involving traditional medicinal plant formulation (July 2010), available at https://ipindia.gov.in
National Biodiversity Authority, Press Release on Bt Brinjal Biopiracy Case (2011), available at http://nbaindia.org (last visited Jul. 23, 2025).
Anil K. Gupta, “Rewarding Traditional Knowledge and Contemporary Grassroots Creativity: The Role of Intellectual Property Protection,” 27(4) Economic and Political Weekly 1223–1232 (1992)
Rahul Vats & Prabhash Ranjan, “Bt Brinjal and Biopiracy: Re-examining India's GMO Policy,” 45(8) Economic & Political Weekly 10–13 (2013)
N.S. Gopalakrishnan and T.G. Agitha, Exploring the Flexibilities in TRIPS for Access to Medicines (LexisNexis, New Delhi, 2012) at 134–136
