New Delhi: The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to address the concerns expressed by various groups at the claims of a U.S. company's bid to get European patent for Indian wheat.

A Bench consisting of Justices Arijit Pasayat and S.H. Kapadia on Friday adjourned by four weeks the hearing on a petition filed by the Research Foundation for Science and Technology and activist Vandana Shiva alleging that the Centre failed to contest Monsanto's claims.

The Bench referred to Additional Solicitor-General Gopal Subramaniam an article in a journal expressing concern over the government's inaction to protect Indian products. He said the need for contesting the case in the United States did not arise as it was a patent for a `strain.' Development of a `strain' in the U.S. could not prevent others evolving a strain/variety with similar characteristics.

The Bench asked Mr. Subramaniam to go through the article as well as consider the petitioner's suggestions and file a report after four weeks. The petitioner was at liberty to file additional material.

The petitioner contended that in 1990 Unilever applied for a patent for wheat, derived from the traditional Indian `Nap Hal,' before the European Patent Office. In 1998, Monsanto acquired Unilever's wheat division and five years later the patent was granted to Monsanto.

Indian heritage

The foundation said wheat, rice, neem and such plant varieties were traditional Indian heritage and products developed by following indigenous knowledge and practices over the centuries.

The different varieties of wheat, use of its products and the medicinal and therapeutic properties of wheat were documented in ancient Indian texts and scriptures.

The petitioner pointed out that the patent specification filed by Monsanto was of a traditional Indian variety, which originated in the country following indigenous research.

"Intellectual piracy"

Monsanto stole the existing traditional knowledge of Indian farmers and was now terming it its own invention.

The attempt was clearly a case of resource and intellectual piracy and theft by a U.S. company and invasion of Indian farmers' right to livelihood.

A committee, appointed by the Centre to consider the averments in the petition, said the need for contesting Monsanto's claim was not established because there was full freedom for Indian scientists to conduct research for developing soft milling varieties.

"We can develop our own varieties of soft milling wheat as and when a demand for export of products of soft milling wheat arises", the committee report said.

In its response, the foundation suggested that amendments be introduced in the Patent Law barring patent on genes; to impose strict liability on corporations in case of genetic contamination and to put in place a system to preserve and protect the country's rich biodiversity.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail