The Indian government has continued its move towards decriminalising technical and procedural defaults through the Jan Vishwas legislative framework. The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026 builds upon the reforms introduced in 2023 and further rationalises offences across several Central laws. Within the intellectual property law framework, the latest amendments affect the Patents Act, 1970 and the Copyright Act, 1957.
The amendments do not alter the substantive rights granted to patent owners or copyright holders. The changes deal with criminal provisions concerning procedural non-compliance, foreign patent filings and false entries in statutory registers. The patent-related amendments came into effect on June 1, 2026, while the copyright amendment became effective on June 15, 2026. These changes continue the shift from criminal prosecution towards proportionate, administrative and civil consequences for defaults that do not directly constitute infringement or piracy.
Changes to the Patents Act, 1970
The Jan Vishwas Act, 2026 makes three principal changes to Chapter XX of the Patents Act.
Reclassification of Chapter XX
The heading of Chapter XX has been changed from “Penalties” to “Punishments”. Several provisions in the Chapter now prescribe civil penalties administered through an adjudicatory mechanism. However, Section 118 continues to prescribe criminal punishment for non-compliance with FFL provisions when invention relates to the area of defence or atomic energy.
Conditional Exemption from Punishment for Foreign Filing License Violations
Section 39 of the Patents Act regulates the filing of patent applications outside India by persons resident in India. A resident cannot ordinarily file a patent application abroad unless an application for the same invention was filed in India at least 6 weeks earlier and no secrecy direction is in force. Further, prior written permission may be obtained alternatively from the Controller. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the Government to assess whether an invention is relevant to defence or atomic energy before technical information is disclosed in a foreign patent application.
Before the 2026 amendment, a contravention of Section 39 attracted criminal liability under Section 118. The person concerned could be punished with imprisonment for up to 2 years, a fine, or both.
The amendment adds a proviso to Section 118 under which, if the Central Government forms the opinion that the invention was not relevant to defence purposes or atomic energy at the time of the contravention, the punishment prescribed under Section 118 will not apply.
This is a significant relaxation as it recognises that not every technical failure to obtain foreign filing license presents a national security concern. A filing involving an ordinary commercial invention may have resulted from an inadvertent compliance error, uncertainty about the inventor’s residence at the time invention or a misunderstanding of the foreign filing license requirements. However, final verdict depends upon the opinion of the Central Government regarding the character of the invention at the time of the contravention. An applicant cannot self-assess eligibility; the exemption operates only after the Central Government forms the requisite opinion.
Effect on Other Consequences of Violating Section 39
The amendment only excludes the application of the punishment under Section 118 in specified circumstances. It does not amend Section 39 itself or remove the other consequences of non-compliance. Section 40 provides that where a person files an application outside India in contravention of Section 39, the corresponding Indian patent application is treated as abandoned. If a patent has already been granted, it is liable to revocation.
The contravention of Section 39 also remains a ground for revocation under Section 64. Therefore, even where the Central Government concludes that the invention was unrelated to defence or atomic energy and criminal punishment does not apply, the applicant may still face consequences affecting the Indian patent application or patent.
The 2026 amendment reduces exposure to imprisonment, but it does not make foreign filing compliance optional. Patent applicants must assess inventor’s residence, filing sequence, foreign filing licences and secrecy considerations before filing applications outside India.
Omission of Section 119
Section 119 of the Patents Act dealt with falsification of entries in the Register of Patents. It applied where a person:
- made or caused a false entry to be made in a register maintained.
- prepared a document falsely claiming to be a copy of an entry in the register.
- knowingly produced or tendered a false entry or document as evidence.
The offence was punishable with imprisonment for up to 2 years, a fine, or both. The Jan Vishwas Act, 2026 omits Section 119 in its entirety. Consequently, falsification of patent register entries is no longer a specific offence under the Patents Act. However, depending upon the facts, such conduct may still attract consequences under general criminal law, procedural law, evidence law or provisions concerning fraud. Entries in the Register of Patents may also be challenged or rectified through the mechanisms available under the Patents Act. The change instead removes a specialised criminal offence from the patent legislation and leaves fraudulent conduct to be addressed through other applicable legal remedies.
Practical Implications for Patent Applicants
The amendment to Section 118 is particularly relevant for Indian companies, multinational corporations, research institutions and startups operating across jurisdictions. Organisations must maintain a structured foreign filing review process, including identifying whether any inventor or applicant is resident in India, determining whether a corresponding Indian application has been filed, checking the expiry of the 6-week period, and obtaining a foreign filing licence where required. Patent applicants must also document internal invention disclosures, national security reviews and foreign filing decisions. Where a violation is identified, an early assessment may help determine the available corrective steps.
Changes to the Copyright Act, 1957
The 2026 amendment to the Copyright Act omits Section 67, which specifically criminalised false entries and documents connected with the Register of Copyrights. Before its omission, Section 67 applied where a person:
- made or caused a false entry to be made in the Register of Copyrights.
- made a document falsely claiming to be a copy of an entry in the Register.
- knowingly produced or tendered a false entry or document as evidence.
The offence was punishable with imprisonment for up to 1 year, a fine, or both. From June 15, 2026, this conduct is no longer punishable as a specific offence under Section 67 of the Copyright Act. With Sections 67 and 68 now omitted, two registration and authority-related criminal offences have been removed from the copyright legislation.
Conclusion
The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026 further narrows the use of criminal punishment within the intellectual property law framework in India. For patents, the amendment protects persons from punishment under Section 118 where a violation of the foreign filing requirement affects an invention that the Central Government considers unrelated to defence or atomic energy. At the same time, foreign filing requirements remain mandatory, and the consequences of abandonment or revocation may continue to apply.
The omission of Section 119 of the Patents Act and Section 67 of the Copyright Act removes specialised offences concerning false entries and documents in statutory registers. These changes build upon the 2023 amendments, which had already converted several patent offences into administrative penalties and removed Section 68 of the Copyright Act. In conclusion, the amendment seeks to align punishment with the nature of the conduct involved.
Authors: Manisha Singh and Shivi Gupta