Jan Vishwas Act and Intellectual Property in India: Decriminalisation, Fines, and Compliance

Introduction

For foundational statutory analysis, consult our in-depth Trade Secrets Law Guide.

Recently, in April 2026, the central government passed the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026, which is an omnibus amending act, as it decriminalises more than 717 provisions across 79 central acts and promotes trust-based governance by replacing the minor, technical, and procedural defaults with monetary penalties and graded enforcement across the scope of 79 different statutes across 23 ministries, as intended by the government’s policies. However, this article is primarily focused on the recent changes incorporated in the Patent Act, 1970, and the Copyright Act, 1957, and how these amendments will influence the intellectual law framework in India.

According to the government, the founding philosophy is that decriminalisation is not an amnesty. By doing this decriminalisation exercise on this massive scale, the government is trying to do the following: –

First, strengthening the enforcement mechanism by only criminalising genuine wrongdoing from technical defaults.

Second, enhancing the ease of doing business.

Third, by decriminalising minor technical infractions, and technical inconveniences, the burden of courts and other enforcement machinery will substantially reduce.

4.) This reduced burden will allow the enforcement machinery and court to focus primarily on the cases of significant importance.

5.) Further strengthening the trust in governance.

6.) Improve India’s IP regime and induce further investment prospects.

CHANGES IN THE PATENT ACT, 1970

Even though there are no substantial amendments made in the Patent Act, 1970, by this Jan Vishwas Act, 2026, whatever changes are made by the amendment are of great importance.

There are three principle changes made in the Patent Act. These changes are:-

1.) Chapter XX and its heading were renamed from “Penalties” to “Punishments”.

This change was done in order to reflect the fact that several provisions now sit within an administrative, penalty-based adjudication structure rather than a purely criminal one.

2.) Changes in the definition of section 118 of the act.

Section 118 of the Patent Act, 1970, originally intended that any person who fails to comply with any direction given under section 35 or makes or causes to be made an application for the grant of a patent in contravention of section 39 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with a fine, or with both.

However, the proposed change has altered the definition which states that in case of contravention of section 39, if, in the opinion of the central government, the invention was not relevant for the purpose of defence or atomic energy at the time of contravention, the provision contained in the section shall not apply.  

The new proposed definition does not only decriminalise the acts which were the result of minor technical irregularities, rather than the deliberate attempt of criminal bypass of the law, but also limits the criminal liability to the scope of defence or atomic energy which is of great national interest.    

Section 39 of the Patent Act, 1970, deals with the filing of patent applications outside India by persons resident in India. This section proposes certain conditions which are to be fulfilled before filing the patent outside India, and any violation of these conditions results in imprisonment up to the term of two years, or a fine, or both.   

The main purpose behind this legislative action was to ease business doing and to promote further innovation in the same field. This amendment was the necessary legislative intervention, as in the current deeply interconnected world, the innovation ecosystem has become globalised; inventions are often developed by teams spread across multiple jurisdictions.

3.) Omission of section 119.

Earlier in Section 119 of the act, if a person makes a false entry in any register kept under this act or a writing falsely purporting to be a copy of an entry in such a register, or knowingly produces or tenders the false entry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with a fine, or with both.

But the recent amendment has omitted this provision; however, this does not mean that the act of forging a false entry in the mentioned registry has been decriminalised, as such an act is still criminalised under the general criminal law framework as per the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

CHANGES IN THE COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957

1.) Omission of section 67.

Section 67 of the Copyright Act, 1957, criminalises the act of making a false entry in the register kept under this act or making someone else make a false entry with the knowledge of its falsity, with the imprisonment term up to one year, a fine, or both.  

The main motive behind the omission of the section was that it was proposed that the act is fundamentally a registration/documentation integrity issue, not an act of copyright infringement or piracy. Thus, criminalising such technical inconvenience would result in a disproportionate penalty to the actual harm.

Moreover, there exist alternative non-criminal remedies like rectification proceedings before the Registrar/Copyright Board/appellate authority to challenge register entries and criminal remedies under their validity under general criminal law (forgery, fraud provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita).

This change is consistent with the earlier reform of the omission of section 68 of the act under the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023. Now, by omitting both Section 67 and Section 68, these two distinct registration- and authority-related criminal offences have effectively been taken out of the copyright framework across the two rounds of Jan Vishwas reform.

IMPACT

For the practitioners in the field, all the changes made are of great procedural importance, which can have a substantial impact on the practitioners.

Especially with the changes made in section 39, earlier the firm could apply for the cross-border patent only after the elapse of the six-week time window after filing for a patent in India. This procedural requirement was necessary to ensure that any patent related to the important or critical invention technology is recorded in India before filing for a foreign patent.

However, the amendments do not dilute the underlying obligation under section 39, as firms are still obligated to continue verifying the residential status of inventors, confirming prior filing in India, and tracking the mandatory window before filing abroad. As for the core technologies related to the defence or atomic energy sectors. Clients should still be aware of the process, as civil liability will still be imposed for breaching the obligation, even if criminal liability is absolved.

As for the practitioners of the copyright act, the omission of section 67 means that all the matters related to the forgery of the register kept under this act will be dealt with as per the general criminal provision of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). This, however, does not influence the general enforcement of core infringement and piracy provisions, which remain fully criminal, but requires practitioners to redirect register-related disputes to the appropriate forum.

Furthermore, changes in both statutes require practitioners to update compliance checklists and client risk advisories, shifting emphasis from criminal exposure, which has narrowed, to the civil and administrative consequences that remain the operative risk.

CONCLUSION

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026, reflects a consistent approach towards the Patent Act, 1970, and the Copyright Act, 1957, that the government should restrain itself from over-criminalising, and the criminal penalties should only be reserved for the actions which have actual harm, such as infringement, piracy, or a genuine risk to national security, whereas actions like forgery or procedural misappropriation shall be dealt with civilly.   

The changes made in section 118 carefully strike the balance between both safeguarding national interests through proper monitoring mechanisms for the innovations in the defence or atomic energy fields while also giving enough leeway for the ease of business for the inventions in other fields. The omission of section 67, which is in alignment with the Jan Vishwas Act, 2023, further tries to minimise the burden on the already exhausting judiciary while also maintaining the penal provisions for the same act under the general criminal code.

These amendments mark a steady, incremental shift in India’s IP enforcement architecture, one that practitioners will need to track closely as implementing rules, procedural clarifications, and judicial interpretation continue to develop.

Also Read: Section 3(j) of the Patents Act: Plant Exclusions, Monsanto v. Nuziveedu, and the PPV and FR Alternative

References

 The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2026. 

The Patent Act, 1970.

The Copyright Act, 1957.

The Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023.