Polity · 18 Jul 2026

compulsory licensing Patents Act

Consider the following statements:

  1. Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970 empowers the Central Government to use a patented invention, including domestic manufacture, for public purposes.
  2. India has invoked compulsory licensing provisions only once since 2005, in the case of the cancer drug Nexavar.
  3. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of judicial delay in a Ribociclib-related case only after the original petitioner's death.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

A1 only
B1 and 2 only
C2 and 3 only
D1, 2 and 3

Tests the ability to distinguish a stated causal trigger from a merely associated fact within a multi-layered current event, rather than simple statement verification.

Subscribe / Login in App →
This question is based on: When a Court's Calendar Becomes a Matter of Life and Death
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 18 Jul 2026
About this question

Why in news

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of judicial delays in cases involving access to life-saving drugs after a Kerala High Court matter on Ribociclib was listed 57 times without a final hearing since January 2023.

Why for UPSC

This tests the analytical distinction between a genuine trigger and an associated but non-causal fact - a layer beneath the obvious headline that UPSC often probes in "which statements" format.

Prelims summary

Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970 permits government-use licensing; India has used compulsory licensing only once since 2005 (Nexavar, 2012); the SC's suo motu action addressed the duration of judicial delay itself as an Article 21 concern.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.