Justice Ayyangar did not propose the abolition of the patent system because despite the handicaps which the system involved for developing countries, he could not see an alternative method for achieving better results. As a result, he recommended the maintenance of the existing basic system but was aware of the introduction of stringent limitations on the scope of patentability and stated, for instance, that patentability should not be accepted where this would be detrimental to national health or well-being. One of the questions, which he addressed in detail, was the issue of patentability in food and medicine related areas of technology and proposed to prohibit patentability for products in these two areas. This was based partly on a comparative analysis of other countries, which showed even most developed countries had restrictions in place in this field. Further, from a domestic point of view, he argued that the denial of product claims was necessary so that important articles of daily use such as medicine or food

which are vital to the health of the community should be made available to, everyone at reasonable prices and that no monopoly should be granted in respect of such articles. It is considered that the refusal of product patents would enlarge the area of competition and this result in the production of these articles in sufficient quantity and at the lowest possible cost to the public ( Ibid .).

As a result of the Ayyangar report and other consultations, the patents regime was eventually modified in an attempt to make it fit the developmental priorities of the country.