Revocation of patents under the Indian Patents Act, 1970 serves as an essential mechanism to ensure that patent rights are granted and maintained only for inventions that genuinely satisfy the legal requirements of novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. It acts as a corrective tool to eliminate invalid patents that may have been granted erroneously or have become untenable over time. The Act provides multiple methods through which a patent can be revoked, reflecting a balance between the rights of patentees and the interests of the public. One of the primary methods of revocation is through a petition filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which has now been replaced by the High Courts following the Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021. Under Section 64 of the Act, any person interested or the Central Government may file a revocation petition before the appropriate High Court. The term “person interested” has been interpreted broadly to include individuals or entities engaged in or promoting research in the same field as the patented invention, thereby ensuring that competitors and stakeholders can challenge invalid patents. The grounds for revocation under Section 64 are extensive and include lack of novelty, obviousness, non-patentable subject matter, wrongful obtainment, insufficiency of disclosure, failure to disclose information required under Section 8, and non-compliance with secrecy directions, among others. This provision ensures that patents can be scrutinized comprehensively even after they have been granted. Another significant method is revocation by way of a counterclaim in an infringement suit. When a patentee initiates an infringement action against an alleged infringer, the defendant has the right to challenge the validity of the patent by filing a counterclaim for revocation under Section 64. In such cases, the matter is transferred to the High Court, as only the High Court has jurisdiction to decide revocation issues. This method is particularly important because it allows defendants to defend themselves not merely by denying infringement but by attacking the very basis of the patent. It integrates the question of validity into infringement proceedings, ensuring judicial efficiency and consistency in decision-making. Revocation can also occur through the Central Government under specific circumstances, particularly in cases involving public interest. Section 66 empowers the Central Government to revoke a patent if it is of the opinion that the patent or the mode in which it is exercised is mischievous to the State or generally prejudicial to the public. This provision is rarely invoked but serves as a powerful tool to address patents that may adversely affect national security, public health, or economic interests. It reflects the principle that patent rights are not absolute and must yield to larger societal concerns. Another method is revocation for non-working of patents,