The international arena has witnessed an exponential increase in the number of people giving importance to intellectual property, initiating debates and discussions about it. Most of these debates and discussions are centred around the ‘Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights’ or what is otherwise known as ‘TRIPS’. The signatories of ‘TRIPS’ are supposed to stick to certain standards in the process of their legislative decisions related to intellectual property. The other major organization which is the World Intellectual Property Organisation or ‘WIPO’ experienced a shift in discussions and inclination towards a more balanced perspective towards intellectual property. Nothing signified this shift more than the Development Agenda of 2007 that consisted of 45 recommendations adopted that was supposed to introduce a balanced approach to intellectual property when it comes to tackling more substantive issues. We don’t need to look afar to acknowledge the sort of impact these shifts in discussions had on countries. India’s ‘Patents Act, 1970’, which did not have provisions on product patents in the agriculture, food and most importantly in the pharmaceutical industry as late as the year 1995. This gave rise to a generic pharma market offering huge amounts of cheaper drugs. Becoming a signatory to the TRIPS agreement meant that India had to amend its patent laws and legislate for product patents in the above-mentioned sectors as well. These obligations that India was obligated to follow make sure that Indian pharmaceutical corporations could not focus on generic versions of patented drugs by resorting to alternative methods. 

Intellectual Property Right is usually thought of as a right to ownership of the property being a product of human intelligence, innovation and creativity. The most rudimentary notion here is to balance moral rights as well as the economic rights of the creators and society. The 24th Session in Paris took place in Paris, in the year 1985. Its Executive Committee is cogent and clear terms established that the basic tenets of copyright are based on human rights and justice. Even though this was declared for copyright law, it can be acceptable to state that this was a vital acknowledgement of intellectual property as human rights. An acknowledgement was made similarly in the monumental document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1984. Under Article 27 the document states the following: ‘Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author’. The TRIPS agreement has one of its objectives stated under Article 7 as: “The protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations.” It does imply in some ways that there should exist a certain balance between the moral right of the creator and the needs of the society in general. The conflict between human rights, which are supposed to be alienable and universal and the general needs of society needs more deliberation.