Divya Pharmacy v Union of India
📌 Case Title:
Divya Pharmacy v. Union of India
🏛️ Court:
Uttarakhand High Court
📅 Citation:
(2018) SCC OnLine Utt 526
Date of Judgment: 21 December 2018
🔍 Background:
Divya Pharmacy, part of Patanjali Ayurved Limited, is a prominent Indian manufacturer of Ayurvedic medicines and products. It was involved in collecting and using medicinal plants and natural resources for manufacturing Ayurvedic formulations.
The case arose because Divya Pharmacy challenged the applicability of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, particularly the requirement to share benefits with local communities under the Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) provisions.
The National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) and Uttarakhand Biodiversity Board (UBB) directed Divya Pharmacy to pay a certain percentage of its revenue under ABS provisions, claiming that it was a "user of biological resources" under the Act.
Divya Pharmacy disputed this, arguing that:
It was an Indian entity, and
The ABS provisions were meant for foreign entities, not domestic companies.
⚖️ Legal Issues:
Whether Indian companies like Divya Pharmacy are required to pay Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002?
Who qualifies as a “benefit claimer” and what are the obligations of companies using biological resources?
Is the benefit-sharing obligation limited to foreign entities or does it also apply to Indian companies using Indian biological resources for commercial purposes?
📚 Relevant Law:
🔹 Biological Diversity Act, 2002
Section 2(f): Defines "biological resources"
Section 2(m): Defines "commercial utilization"
Section 3, 7, 21, 24, 32, and 41: Cover access to biological resources and benefit-sharing mechanisms
Section 7: Prohibits Indian citizens/entities from obtaining biological resources for commercial use without giving prior intimation to the State Biodiversity Board.
Section 21: Provides for benefit-sharing when biological resources are accessed.
🧑⚖️ Judgment Summary:
The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed Divya Pharmacy’s petition and held that:
✅ 1. Indian companies are liable under ABS provisions:
The Court clarified that the benefit-sharing obligations under Section 7 of the Biological Diversity Act apply to Indian companies as well, not just to foreign entities.
Divya Pharmacy, though an Indian entity, was commercially exploiting biological resources (like medicinal plants) and thus was liable to share benefits with local communities.
✅ 2. Definition of “commercial utilization” is broad:
Manufacturing herbal and Ayurvedic products using medicinal plants falls under "commercial utilization" as per the Act.
Since Divya Pharmacy used these resources in large-scale production and profited from them, they were obligated to share a portion of the benefits.
✅ 3. Purpose of ABS is to protect community rights and promote conservation:
The Court emphasized the spirit of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to which India is a party.
It upheld the constitutional duty under Article 48A and Article 51A(g) to protect and improve the natural environment.
✅ 4. Local communities have a right to benefit from their biological resources:
The Court reaffirmed that local and indigenous communities who protect and cultivate biodiversity must be rewarded and incentivized through fair benefit-sharing.
📌 Key Takeaways from the Judgment:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Equal Applicability | ABS provisions apply to both Indian and foreign companies. |
| Biological Resource Use | Using plants or herbs for commercial manufacturing invokes ABS obligations. |
| Conservation-Oriented Law | Law must be interpreted in a way that promotes biodiversity conservation and community empowerment. |
| No Exemption for Indian Entities | Indian companies cannot claim exemption just because they operate domestically. |
| Legal Obligation to Pay ABS | Companies must disclose usage and pay a fair share as determined by State Biodiversity Boards. |
⚖️ Related Case Law / Legal Principles:
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992
Recognizes sovereign rights over biological resources and mandates equitable benefit sharing.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267
Emphasized the importance of protecting forest and environmental resources as part of constitutional obligations.
Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647
Established the Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle, both relevant to natural resource conservation.
🧾 Significance of the Case:
First major judicial interpretation of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) obligations under the Biological Diversity Act.
Reinforced community rights over natural resources.
Ensured that private profit from biodiversity must include public and ecological benefit.
Laid the foundation for legal enforcement of ABS compliance in India.
The case became a precedent for holding domestic companies accountable under India's biodiversity laws.
📝 Conclusion:
The Divya Pharmacy v. Union of India case is a landmark decision in Indian environmental jurisprudence. It clearly holds that no person or company—Indian or foreign—can commercially exploit India's biological wealth without fulfilling their legal and ethical duty to share benefits with the communities and ecosystems from where these resources originate.
It also sends a strong message: economic development must be ecologically sustainable and socially inclusive.
RELATED Blog
0 comments