The main constraints inherent in the Indian legal system are multidimensional. First and foremost, the government does not recognize the term indigenous per se, regardless of whether the word indigenous has already been used in a document before the international community.55 India`s position in the international forum asserted that tribal members survive, but not as indigenous communities.56 However, this distinction was made at a later stage, as India was a party to the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1957. India supported the document at the beginning, when it used only the term Indians. In several government publications, the terms Adivasis and indigenous people have been used interchangeably. The current rejection of the term indigenous was developed in the Working Group in 1984 and later in 1992.57 Second, India still follows ILO Article 107, which has already been replaced by ILO Article 169. There are countless issues that need to be presented at this point. ILO 107 was abolished and replaced by ILO 169. Third, there are no positive parameters for protecting these peoples from their lands and culture.58 In fact, there are many indigenous communities in India that are not recognized under the jurisdiction of scheduled tribes, making the process “more political than legal.” By submitting the reports of the Universal Periodic Review, India has removed the atrocities suffered by these peoples at the hands of non-tribal peoples and the State.59 million of these peoples have been evicted from their habitats, forcing them to change their way of life and contributing to the loss of traditional knowledge, their ancestral cultural expressions. Indigenous language and traditional agricultural practices, among others.60 In the absence of a uniform legal framework proposed by WIPO (like other intellectual property rights), TK has not received positive protection in India,61 unlike Malaysia62 or Kenya.63(ii) the enactment of sui generis telecommunications protection laws, which are partly based on current forms of intellectual property rights. but have some modern features. There is concern that this knowledge may be used and patented by third parties without the prior informed consent of telecommunications owners, and that little or no benefit will be shared with the communities from which this knowledge originates and exists.
These concerns have placed TK at the top of the international agenda and have sparked a lively debate on how TK can be preserved, protected, developed and used sustainably. The documentation and digitization of telecommunications information in the form of a TKDL is proving to be an effective means of obtaining TK and preventing its misappropriation by third parties. India is a pioneer in this field. In recent decades, there has been a global debate on the need to protect TK. A global treaty seems a distant reality. Measures taken by the international community to protect access to biological resources in the name of TK protection were more directly relevant. India`s experience with the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity has created considerable legal uncertainty in collaborative scientific research between Indians and foreigners, in addition to the bureaucratization of the entire scientific research process, particularly with regard to the submission of applications for intellectual property rights. The question, therefore, is whether the world needs to better reconcile the needs of the scientific community with the rights of those who have access to traditional knowledge. Despite the difficulty of finding the point of interception of the knowledge systems of the different indigenous peoples of the United States, Canada or India, it is not very difficult to predict the similarity and richness of the two. One of the living examples of CMT is the living roots of Meghalaya, which demonstrate the uniqueness of India`s traditional knowledge systems. The Khasi community in this state revolved around the aerated roots to mold them into a bridge.86 These structures/trees have sacred value to the community, highlighting their ingenuity and uniqueness.87 The main objective of the above classification is to distinguish the weakest forms of rights for widely used TK and TCEs. This would therefore attach an exclusive right (strong right) to the indigenous community that has kept it secret and out of public view.
In general, indigenous older persons refrain from disclosing traditional knowledge. Once protection is assured, it is expected that these practices and knowledge will be voluntarily documented. This incentive would encourage younger members of the community to continue their knowledge of ancestors as ancestors. In other words, weaker forms of rights may be linked to widespread or publicly available TCEs.102 By including this process, access and benefit-sharing aspects could be assessed and taken into account. Once the policy is implemented, the mechanism would ensure stratified benefit-sharing among stakeholders. The method has been discussed and accepted to some extent in the countries of the North, but not in the countries of the South. Countries such as Canada and Australia have, to some extent, invoked and succeeded in this method of benefit-sharing.103 By adhering to this policy, India would position itself as a pioneer and pioneer in this part of the world. It is imperative to note that TCs and limited TCEs that remain among people, especially older persons, are in urgent need of protection and documentation. Young people need to be sure of the economic viability of their ancestral knowledge.
Specific measures should be taken to promote such TCEs/TCEs and to retroactively protect the rights of those peoples with a strong legal framework for the implementation of benefit-sharing, while respecting the principles of the Nagoya Protocol to which India was a signatory. The above issues are complex and raise several moral, ethical and legal questions. With these questions in mind, below we discuss the dilemma of creating a legal framework to protect telecommunications. Later, in 1994, TBGRI scientists filed patents and licensed them to an Indian pharmaceutical company for $50,000 plus 2% royalties on all sales. In 1997, TBGRI assisted the Kani in establishing a trust to document their TK (they were aware of factories other than arogyapacha) and to conclude benefit-sharing agreements. Adult Kanis had control of the trust. In a few years, according to the WIPO report, Kani will have received the first payment of $12,500. I hope the article has added value to your knowledge. Please comment and don`t forget to share.
The BNST has an integrated global biopiracy monitoring system that tracks patent applications related to Indian pharmaceutical systems. It effectively detects attempts to misuse this knowledge by third parties filing applications with patent offices around the world. This means that immediate corrective action can be taken, at no direct cost, to prevent biopiracy. India is so far the only country to have such a system in place. This popularity of the TKDL, as well as its success, has led to changes in WIPO. WIPO`s International Patent Classification (IPC) has adopted the Traditional Knowledge Resource Classification System (TKRC), a new NTB classification system. “The International Patent Classification (IPC), introduced by the 1971 Strasbourg Convention, provides for a hierarchical structure of independent linguistic symbols for the classification of patents and utility models according to the different fields of technology to which they relate.74 A new version of the IPC enters into force each year on January 1. 75 Another important achievement was the identification of 1155 allegations of biopiracy in various IP offices by the TKDL team.76 As a result, many were legally deterred from committing similar misconduct. Thus, the BNST has proven to be a very effective defense mechanism to stop biopiracy as they continue their efforts to improve the database of 150 books on areas such as yoga, unani, siddha and ayurveda, among others.
