Summary: The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026 has amended the Patents Act, 1970, and the Copyright Act, 1957, signalling a more business-friendly and balanced legal system for all stakeholders.
Introduction
The Government of India, in its continued effort to decriminalise and rationalise offences and promote trust-based governance to improve the ease of living and doing business, has enacted the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026 (2026 JVA). In the intellectual property space, two sets of amendments are relevant:
- Amendments to the Patents Act, 1970 (the Patents Act): These revise terminology used in penal provisions, amend the framework for foreign filing licenses, and remove a criminal offence. These amendments came into force with effect from 01 June 2026.
- Amendment to the Copyright Act, 1957 (the Copyright Act): Section 67 stands omitted, thereby removing the criminal offence relating to false entries in the Register of Copyrights. This came into force with effect from 15 June 2026.
Collectively, these amendments reflect a broader legislative shift towards ensuring that procedural lapses do not automatically attract criminal consequences, while continuing to preserve safeguards in matters involving national security and public interest. The amendments are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.
A. Amendments to the Patents Act
1. Relief for inadvertent violations of Section 39
The most significant amendment in 2026 JVA pertains to Section 118 of the Patents Act, dealing with the contravention of secrecy provisions, and specifically, the contravention of section 39 of the Patents Act.
Section 39 of the Patents Act requires a person resident in India to obtain permission from the Indian Patent Office before filing a patent application outside India, unless an application has first been filed in India and the prescribed waiting of six weeks has elapsed. This is intended to allow the Government sufficient time and opportunity to determine whether an invention relates to matters that could affect national security, particularly defence technologies or atomic energy.
However, with the innovation ecosystem becoming globalised, inventions are often developed by teams spread across multiple jurisdictions. Patent filings may be coordinated by foreign counsel, multinational corporations, or overseas research institutions. In such situations, it is not unusual for a foreign filing to occur before anyone realizes that one of the inventors is considered a resident of India for the purposes of Section 39. Historically, even where the invention had no connection with defence or atomic energy, a violation of Section 39 could potentially expose the applicant to criminal consequences.
The 2026 JVA has amended Section 118 of the Patents Act introducing considerable flexibility. Now, a person will not be liable for punishment for a violation of Section 39 if, in the opinion of the Central Government, the invention was not relevant to defence purposes or atomic energy at the time the foreign filing was made.
This is a significant and much-needed amendment, as it recognizes that not every Section 39 violation arises from an attempt to circumvent the law. Often, a so-called “violation” is simply due to oversight, misunderstanding, or the complexities of coordinating international patent filings. The amendment therefore strikes a balance between protecting national interests and avoiding disproportionate consequences for genuine procedural mistakes.
The exact operating mechanism of this amendment, however, is not clarified, and might require additional procedural notifications.
2. Chapter XX title changed from “Penalties” to “Punishments”
The renaming of Chapter XX of the Patents Act, from “Penalties” to “Punishments” more accurately reflects the nature of the provisions now contained in this chapter. Note that by a previous round of amendments, in 2023, several provisions that imposed criminal offences were repealed or converted into civil penalties.
3. Omission of Section 119
Section 119 dealt with falsification of entries in the Register of Patents and the use of false patent records or extracts, and invited criminal penalties, including imprisonment for up to two years. While removed from the Patents Act, the general criminal law framework as per the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) will apply to such actions. Offences such as forgery, fabrication of records, and the use of false documents already exist under the BNS, making a separate patent-specific provision unnecessary.
2. Amendments to the Copyright Act
1. Omission of Section 67
The 2026 JVA omits Section 67 of the Copyright Act, removing the criminal offence relating to false entries in the Register of Copyrights.
Previously, the provision penalised (a) the making of false entries in the Register of Copyrights; (b) the making of documents purporting to be copies of entries in such Register; and (c) the production of such false entries or purported copies as evidence, knowing them to be false, prescribing punishment with imprisonment extending to one year, fine, or both. While the provision served to preserve the evidentiary integrity of the Copyright Register, in practical terms, it resulted in penalising authors and creators for errors which were essentially administrative in nature.
Importantly, the omission does not render fraudulent or dishonest conduct in relation to the Register immune from legal scrutiny, with appropriate penal sanctions provided under the BNS. Specifically, conduct previously covered under Section 67 of the Copyright Act continues to attract liability under the BNS, i.e., making a false document (Section 335), forgery (Sections 336 and 337), and cheating (Section 318).
Conclusion
The amendments introduced by the 2026 JVA address long-standing concerns regarding the treatment of procedural non-compliance under India’s patent and copyright laws.
The most important change is the introduction of a shield for inadvertent Section 39 violations, acknowledging the realities of modern cross-border innovation, specifically providing relief where no underlying threat to national security exists.
The chapter title change in the patents statute reinforces the criminal character of the remaining provisions contained therein, and the omissions of Section 119 of the Patents Act and Section 67 of the Copyright Act simplify the respective statutory frameworks by relying on the broader criminal law regime to address fraudulent conduct. They are also consistent with the broader legislative approach of removing offence-specific provisions from sectoral statutes when equivalent remedies are present in general criminal law.
These amendments also cumulatively support the shift from criminal prosecution towards proportionate civil and administrative enforcement for conduct that does not directly impair substantive rights. In the broader scheme of things, this signals a legal system that is more practical, business- and citizen-friendly, and balanced for all stakeholders.
English
Chinese (Simplified)
Japanese