Repair, Resist, Reform: Mapping the Right to Repair Against India’s Patent and Competition Law Regimes

Ms. S. Abhipsha Dash and Mr. Madhav Madan are 3rd-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) students at Symbiosis Law School, Pune.

Introduction

In today's digital era, the design of consumer products, ranging from smartphones to tractors, increasingly involves features that make it impossible for users to repair or customize their own devices. The practice is largely fuelled by restrictive end-user license agreements and has led to an international movement for the "Right to Repair." The Right to Repair is essentially a broad movement to empower consumers and independent repairers by providing them with necessary information, tools, and parts to repair products without relying on the original equipment manufacturer. In India, too, the issue has picked up momentum, especially with growing concerns of e-waste generation, consumer rights, monopolistic inclinations, and sustainable development practices. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs has made a big step toward awareness of the problem with the inauguration of its Right to Repair portal in 2022; however, the country still does not have a robust legal framework that brings intellectual property rights, competition law, and consumer protection together in terms of repair and maintenance activities.

This article addresses the fact that despite the Right to Repair movement gaining a great deal of global pace, its legal recognition in India is still patchy and incomplete. The article analyses the convergence of Indian intellectual property law and competition law that together create structural barriers to independent repair. It presents a close reading of the ambiguity in the Patents Act 1970 and Copyright Act 1957, the inadequacy of available remedies under competition law, and the tension that arises between proprietary rights and consumer freedom. Using doctrinal as well as case study approaches, it contends for the creation of a single policy and legal framework that promotes sustainable consumer rights without undermining innovation and market fairness.

The trade-off between the Right to Repair and the IPR regime in India

One of the various legally controversial areas of the Right to Repair is its overlap with the exclusivity provided under IPR legislations, i.e., patents, copyrights, and trade secrets used by original equipment manufacturers to limit third-party repairs. As per the Section 48 Indian Patents Act, patent owners are provided exclusive rights so as to prevent others from making, using, or selling their inventions. Section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970 prohibits others from making, using or selling their inventions, including essential spare parts or diagnostic tools. But the doctrine of exhaustion suggests that once a patented article is sold, control of the patent owner over that particular article is exhausted. It makes it possible for consumers to use and repair the product. But the question arises, what is a reasonable "repair" and what is an unpermitted "reconstruction"? It was observed in the case of LG Electronics Inc v. Bharat Bhogilal Patel that it is permissible for  a buyer to use or repair a product but does not include third-party manufacture of parts. The line between legal repair and illegal reconstruction is legally unclear and decided on a case-by-case basis, making it risky for consumers and independent repairers. Replacing a worn-out component may be considered as repair, but replacing major assemblies might be considered as infringing reconstruction. Additionally, OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturer) commonly deny access to patented parts or repair manuals, which results in aftermarket monopolies and prevents repairs even when technologically possible.

In spite of Section 84, compulsory licensing is confined to the case of public interest and imposed mainly on pharmaceuticals as yet and not on repair-related barriers, especially in the vital areas of medical or agricultural devices. Likewise, under the Copyright Act, 1957, Sections 65A and 65B strictly prohibit the act of circumvention of technological protection measures such as the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Overriding software locks for the purposes of repair or altering devices is likely to invite a suit for infringement. This is an indication of the restrictive fair use provisions of India that do not allow any scope for independent repairers and repair activities.

The trade-off between the Right to Repair and the Competition Law Framework in India

Most companies maintain repair manuals, diagnostic tools, and software as confidential information, thereby limiting access to independent repair shops. In Shamsher Kataria v Honda Siel Cars India Ltd., the Competition Commission of India observed that certain automobile companies were restricting access to spare parts and technical information, thereby contravening their dominant position as provided under Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The connection between competition law and market behaviour has come to be relevant with the introduction of advanced consumer goods and the resultant dependence on original equipment manufacturers for after-sales service. The Indian Competition Act provides the general legal framework through Sections 3 and 4, which clearly prohibit the abuse of a dominant position. Sections such as Section 3(4), covering exclusive arrangements with authorised dealers or refusal to supply spare parts to independent repair organisations, also specify certain vertical restraints that were specifically considered under the Shamsher Kataria case.

Taking advantage of their market leadership, firms have pursued anti-competitive conduct by withholding spare parts, diagnostic equipment, and technical data from independent service providers. These original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) had enjoyed limited access solely to their own authorised service outlets, thus establishing a closed system that restricted consumer choice and increased repair costs. The Competition Commission of India (CCI) had held that such conduct amounts to abuse of dominance as defined under Section 4(2)(c) inasmuch as it did not permit independent service providers to enter the market as well as violated Section 3(4) by imposing vertical restraints in the form of restrictive dealership agreements. The directive ordered manufacturers to refrain from such conduct, permit genuine spare parts and equipment in the open market, and refrain from compelling consumers to approach authorised service centres exclusively. The ambit of the CCI's intervention into right-to-repair (R2R) matters has, however, recently been curtailed. In the Ericsson v. CCI case, the court had pursued a literal reading, claiming that issues on the repair are under the Patents Act and not the Competition Act. If this decision is extrapolated, it would dilute the applicability of Kataria's precedent, especially where OEMs justify their limitations on repairs or components in the context of patent claims. Such judicial conflict presents an opportunity for future judicial examination by the Supreme Court, which may ultimately decide on an articulable model for determining competitive harms in the repair market.

Briefly, this emphasises the following competition challenges, i.e first it dissects complicated markets into main product and after-sales services segments and demonstrates that pre-eminence in the former is being exploited in the latter. Second, overly restrictive repair provisions are usually buried deep within license or warranty documents and couched under ostensibly legitimate appearing IP protection provisions. Third, the limited resources of the CCI restrict its capacity to pursue all potentially abusive practices proactively, particularly in decentralised and dynamic markets such as electronics, automobiles and smart appliances. Lastly, the concurrent jurisdiction of IP and competition forums causes procedural uncertainty, i.e an OEM can challenge CCI's jurisdiction by contending that the issue is one of patent enforcement and not competition.

Way Forward

In order to implement the Right to Repair in India, we must develop a comprehensive and multi-faceted strategy that reconciles consumer autonomy with the valid interests of intellectual property interests. The initial step is to establish a sector-neutral legal requirement that compels manufacturers to make available a standardised and limited-use “Repair Interface Package” upon sale for any product that is based on intellectual property. The package must contain key diagnostic information, firmware tools, component identification, and repair instructions. 

Legislative transformation of intellectual property regimes is needed to end the existing state of legal uncertainty for repair practice. The Patents Act of 1970 must clearly state the difference between permissible repair and prohibited reconstruction, perhaps through the addition of an explanatory provision to Section 48. Likewise, revisions to Sections 65A and 65B of the Copyright Act of 1957 must allow narrowly circumscribed exceptions to circumvention of digital protection for purposes of repair only. Finally, extension of the fair use doctrine must clearly protect non-commercial repair and modification practice by consumers or independent repair providers.

At the same time, restrictive dealership agreements and post-sale tying clauses restricting access to essential fixing material should be brought under strict scrutiny under Section 3(4). Finally, legislative clarification has to be made to affirm the CCI's jurisdiction under these circumstances. Soft-law norms on repair openness, such as product repair scores, disclosure of availability, and certification labels, should be encouraged to be embraced by producers.

Conclusion

At its core, the Right to Repair is not merely a matter of consumer convenience, but a multidimensional concern encompassing environmental sustainability, economic equity and digital autonomy. In the Indian context, these dimensions acquire an even sharper edge. With the exponential increase in electronic waste and the growing dependence of rural sectors especially in agriculture and healthcare on accessible and affordable repair options, the denial of repair rights translates into systemic exclusion and marginalisation. For a country still grappling with digital divides and infrastructural inequities ensuring repairability is not optional it is imperative. 

This article attempts a novel, intersectional analysis by situating the Right to Repair within the overlapping frameworks of existing intellectual property legislations. The article urges to reimagine the Right to Repair as a tool for regulatory intervention against excessive IP control and market concentration. Apart from the solutions suggested, sector-specific guidelines by CCI which recognises anti-repair practices as potential abuses of dominant position under the Section 4 of Competition Act, mandating design standards by regulatory bodies such as Bureau of Indian Standards such as introducing compulsory reparability score labels for electronic products, akin to France model. Local governments and the Ministry of electronics and IT could be tasked with setting up repair cafes, tool libraries and training centres especially in Tier-II and rural areas creating employment while reducing e-waste. 

In the Indian scenario, a country with rising issues of electronic waste, dependence on reparability by rural agricultural and healthcare communities, and rising digital marginalisation, the stakes are too high to ignore. Allowing consumers to repair on their own property is not a nicety, but the basic issue of ownership, responsibility, and access. The law, therefore, needs to shift to treat this as a pressing issue.