Biobank-based research is not specifically addressed in Indian statutory law and therefore Indian Council for Medical Research guidelines are the primary regulators of biobank research in India. The guidelines allow for broad consent and for any level of identification of specimens. Although privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, courts have limited this right when it conflicts with other rights or with the public interest. Furthermore, there is no established privacy test or actionable privacy right in the common law of India. In order to facilitate biobank-based research, both of these lacunae should be addressed by statutory law specifically addressing biobanking and more directly addressing the accompanying privacy concerns. A biobank-specific law should be written with international guidelines in mind, but harmonization with other laws should not be attempted until after India has created a law addressing biobank research within the unique legal and cultural environment of India.
M.Choudhury and H. K. A.Nath, An Estimate of Public Expenditure on Health in India, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy (2012).
6.
S. K.Hooda, Changing Pattern of Public Expenditure on Health in India, ISID‐PHFI Collaborative Research Centre Institute for Studies in Industrial Development (2012).
7.
N.Limaye, “Pharmacogenomics, Theranostics and Personalized Medicine – The Complexities of Clinical Trials: Challenges in the Developing World,”Applied & Translational Genomics2 (2013): 17–21.
8.
H.Chen and T.Pang, “A Call for Global Governance of Bio-banks,”Bulletin of the World Health Organization93, no. 2 (2015): 113–117.
9.
Indian Council of Medical Research, Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research on Human Participants (New Delhi: ICMR; 2006): at 71.
10.
M.Vaz, “Ethical Challenges in Biobanking: Moving the Agenda Forward in India,”Indian Journal of Medical Ethics11, no. 2 (2014): 79–88.
Kharak Singh vs. The State Of U. P. & Others on 18 December, 1962, 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332, available at <http://indiankanoon.org/doc/619152/> (last visited January 27, 2016).
13.
R. Rajagopal vs. State Of T.N on 7 October, 1994, 1995 AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632, available at <http://indiankanoon.org/doc/501107/> (last visited January 27, 2016).
14.
Mr. Surupsingh Hrya Naik vs. State Of Maharashtra through… on March 23, 2007, AIR 2007 Bom 121, 2007 (109) Bom L R 844, available at <http://indiankanoon.org/doc/570038/> (last visited January 27, 2016).
15.
Id.
16.
N. N.Mishra, “Privacy and the Right to Information Act, 2005,”Indian Journal of Medical Ethics5, no. 4 (2008): 1–5.
Radiological & Imaging Association vs. Union of India 26 August, 2011, available at <http://indiankanoon.org/doc/680703/> (last visited June 20, 2015).
Mrs. Neera Mathur v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr. on October 31, 1991, 1992 AIR 392, 1991 SCR Supl. (2) 146 <http://indiankanoon.org/doc/832598/> (last visited January 27, 2016).
23.
Ms. X v. Mr. Z And Anr. on December 20, 2001, 96 (2002) DLT 354, (2002) DMC 448 <http://indiankanoon.org/doc/627683/> (last visited January 27, 2016).
Bhabani Prasad Jena Etc v. Convenr.Sec.Orissa S.Comn.For Women and Anr. on August 3, 2010, available at <http://indiankanoon.org/doc/486945/> (last visited January 27, 2016).
M. Vijaya v. Chairman and Managing Director, on August, 29, 2001, I (2002) ACC 32, 2002 ACJ 32 <http://indiankanoon.org/doc/859256/> (last visited January 27, 2016).
G.Greenleaf, “India’s Draft The Right to Privacy Bill 2014 – Will Modi’s BJP Enact It?”Privacy Laws & Business International Report129, no. 48 (2014): 21–24.
B.Acharya, “The Four Parts of Privacy in India,”Economic and Political Weekly50, no. 22 (2015): 32-38, at 37.
37.
G.Greenleaf, “India—Confusion Raj, with Outsourcing,” in Asian Data Privacy Laws: Trade and Human Rights Perspectives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014): at 413.
