·PIB·15 marks·250–350 words

The rise in Ayush-related patent filings reflects a shift from protecting traditional knowledge to commercialising it. Critically examine, with reference to biopiracy safeguards.

New · District CollectorCan you hold the district for 72 hours?Floods, a heatwave, an outbreak, a grievance queue. Take the decisions, see the consequences.Play →
In this answer
  1. Signs of a shift towards commercialisation
  2. Signs that protection remains intact

The CGPDTM's Status Report on Ayush Related Inventions (2014–2026) records 4,077 filings and 711 grants, with annual filings rising from 63 to 590 [1]. India's approach has moved beyond defending traditional knowledge (TK) towards making products from it. That shift is real, but it is partial and still bounded by safeguards.

Signs of a shift towards commercialisation

  • Post-COVID surge: 70% of filings and 92.4% of grants came after FY 2020–21 [1].
  • TKDL opened up: in 2022 the Cabinet opened the TKDL to users beyond patent offices on a paid subscription [5]. Codified TK is now treated as a resource for research and products.
  • Privatisation concern: patents turn knowledge held by communities into exclusive rights. The report has no data on benefit-sharing from the 711 grants [1].
  • Weak global safeguard: WIPO's GRATK Treaty makes source disclosure mandatory. But apart from fraud, a patent cannot be revoked just for failing to disclose [3]. The rule ensures the source is named, not that the community is paid.
  • Limited reach: only a few patent offices can access the TKDL, and only under non-disclosure agreements [2]. This leaves gaps for biopiracy abroad.

Signs that protection remains intact

  • Legal bar: Section 3(p), Patents Act 1970 says TK, or a mere aggregation or duplication of known traditional properties, cannot be patented [2]. So grants must cover something new.
  • Disclosure and NBA link: applicants must disclose the source of biological material, and this is passed to the National Biodiversity Authority [2].
  • TKDL as a shield: 375 applications have been refused, amended or withdrawn on TKDL evidence. CSIR also files pre-grant oppositions [2].
  • Examination discipline: the CGPDTM's Ayush examination guidelines require a TKDL prior-art search [6].
  • Modest scale: the grant rate is about 17%, and educational institutions secured only 88 grants from 995 filings [1]. More filings do not mean more products on the market.

Overall, the trend is protection plus commercialisation, not one replacing the other. The way forward:

  • publish pendency data (how long applications wait for a decision);
  • report benefit-sharing outcomes through the NBA;
  • sign up more foreign patent offices to the TKDL;
  • create demand through the insurance cover for Ayush recommended in the National Ayush Mission review [4].

Done together, these would let innovation respect the communities that hold Ayush knowledge and advance SDG 3's goal of affordable healthcare.

Sources

  1. 1Status Report on Ayush Related Inventions in India (2014–2026), CGPDTM: PIB release, 16 Oct 2026filings and grants, post-COVID share, applicant-wise data, no benefit-sharing figures
  2. 2Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question 1724, 13 Mar 2025 (Ministry of Science & Technology)Section 3(p), source disclosure and NBA, 375 applications stopped on TKDL evidence, limited patent-office access, pre-grant oppositions
  3. 3WIPO: Summary of the GRATK Treaty (2024)mandatory disclosure, no revocation for non-disclosure except fraud
  4. 4PRS Legislative Research: Review of National Ayush Missionrecommendation that private insurers cover Ayush treatment
  5. 5Cabinet approves widening access of TKDL database beyond patent offices: PIB, 2022paid-subscription, phased opening of TKDL
  6. 6CGPDTM Guidelines for Examination of Ayush-Related Inventionsmandatory TKDL prior-art search

More from this note