The editorial by Biswajit Dhar and K. M. Gopakumar in The Hindu (dated August 4, 2025) critiques the India–UK Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), especially the provisions in the Intellectual Property chapter concerning access to medicines and technology transfer. It argues that India’s apparent retreat from a robust reliance on compulsory licensing—now being supplanted by an emphasis on voluntary licensing and negotiated technology transfers—undermines its national interest. This shift, the authors contend, erodes India’s leverage to address the high prices of patented medicines and weakens its ability to demand genuinely favorable terms in technology partnerships with developed countries.

To illustrate the importance of compulsory licensing, the editorial cites the 2012 Natco Pharma case, where invoking the existing compulsory licensing mechanism reduced the price of the cancer drug Sorafenib (Nexavar) from approximately ₹2.84 lakh to ₹8,800 per month, greatly enhancing affordability for patients. The authors warn that by softening support for compulsory licensing—a flexibility reaffirmed for public health purposes in the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement—India effectively dilutes a previously strong negotiating position at the WTO and in future disputes.

Further, the editorial questions the sufficiency of voluntary mechanisms for accessing medicines, noting that such arrangements often leave domestic firms on weaker footing while large multinational corporations can impose limiting conditions. In the realm of technology transfer, the agreement, according to the editorial, places India on a disadvantaged periphery by not securing binding, equitable transfer terms and by elevating less enforceable “mutually agreed” approaches over structured leverage. Overall, the authors characterize the IP chapter of the India–UK pact as a strategic concession that risks compromising India’s policy space and public health safeguards