THE INDIAN LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND BIOPIRACY: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
AUTHOR – SNOWMECA SREE S S* & Ms. ANNA JOHN**
* STUDENT AT VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & ADVANCED STUDIES (VISTAS)
** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR AT SCHOOL OF LAW, VELS INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ADVANCED STUDIES (VISTAS)
BEST CITATION – SNOWMECA SREE S S & Ms. ANNA JOHN, THE INDIAN LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK AND BIOPIRACY: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (7) OF 2026, PG. 576-586, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I765
This paper undertakes a rigorous doctrinal and analytical examination of two foundational dimensions of traditional knowledge protection under Indian law. Chapter III furnishes a critical audit of the principal legislative instruments through which India seeks to guard the intellectual heritage of its indigenous and local communities — encompassing the Patents Act 1970 (as amended), the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act 2001, and the Biological Diversity Act 2002. Chapter IV then subjects three landmark biopiracy controversies — the turmeric, neem, and basmati disputes — to granular legal scrutiny, tracing the manner in which each case exposed structural deficiencies in both domestic and international intellectual property frameworks and catalysed subsequent legislative and diplomatic responses.
The analysis reveals that India’s existing patchwork of legislative instruments, while individually innovative in certain respects, collectively fails to constitute a coherent or comprehensive system of traditional knowledge protection. The Patents Act’s defensive mechanisms prevent the wrongful grant of patents on traditional knowledge but confer no positive rights on knowledge-holding communities. The Biological Diversity Act’s access and benefit sharing framework is undermined by inadequate institutional capacity and fragmented enforcement. Geographical indications and plant variety protection offer narrowly circumscribed relief. Meanwhile, the biopiracy case studies demonstrate that successful challenges have been extraordinarily resource-intensive and structurally dependent on prior documentation — advantages that marginalised indigenous communities rarely possess.
The paper concludes by affirming that genuine protection for India’s traditional knowledge heritage demands the enactment of a sui generis legislative framework that accords positive collective rights to knowledge-holding communities, mandates genuine free prior informed consent, and institutes robust benefit-sharing mechanisms enforceable both domestically and in foreign jurisdictions.
Keywords: Traditional Knowledge; Biopiracy; Patents Act; Biological Diversity Act; TKDL; Geographical Indications; PPVFR Act; Access and Benefit Sharing; Turmeric Case; Neem Case; Sui Generis Protection; India.