Ethics · 21 Jul 2026

compulsory licensing Nexavar Patents Act

Consider the following statements:

  1. India has issued only one compulsory licence since aligning with TRIPS, for Bayer's Nexavar in
  2. 2. Sections 92 and 100 of the Patents Act, 1970 provide the legal basis for compulsory licensing on public-health grounds.
  3. The Doha Declaration explicitly restricts WTO member countries from using compulsory licensing for public-health purposes.

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 identify an inverted statement about an international agreement's actual legal function, a distinction requiring precise understanding rather than topical familiarity.

Subscribe / Login in App →
This question is based on: The Patent That Funded The Cure Is The Same Patent That Blocked The Patient
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 21 Jul 2026
About this question

Why in news

The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance of judicial delays in access-to-medicine cases in July 2026, after a Kerala High Court compulsory-licensing case over the cancer drug Ribociclib was adjourned more than 57 times before the petitioner died.

Why for UPSC

UPSC often inverts the function of an international declaration or agreement as a distractor, testing whether aspirants understand that Doha's flexibilities protect, rather than limit, public-health measures.

Prelims summary

India has issued one compulsory licence (Nexavar, 2012) under Sections 92/100 of the Patents Act, 1970. The Doha Declaration protects, not restricts, WTO members' right to use compulsory licensing for public health.

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.