Introduction

The blocking of Sci-Hub in India marks a turning point in the battle between corporate publishers and the principle of open knowledge. At the heart of the issue lies the paradox of publicly funded research locked behind exorbitant paywalls. The government’s One Nation One Subscription (ONOS) scheme, with an allocation of ₹6,000 crore, aims to democratize access to 13,000 journals for research institutions. Yet, concerns remain about its cost-effectiveness, inclusivity, and long-term sustainability.

Why is this issue in the news?

• The Delhi High Court’s verdict against Sci-Hub is a landmark moment because:
• For the first time in India, the judiciary has formally sided with publishers in the long-drawn copyright battle.
• It stands in sharp contrast with the reality that research is funded by public money but monetized by private publishers with 30%+ profit margins.
• The problem is enormous: lakhs of rupees per journal subscription make access unaffordable for many institutions, forcing dependence on Sci-Hub earlier.
• The government’s ONOS initiative is the first large-scale attempt to address structural inequities in knowledge access, but doubts persist about its ability to replace shadow libraries.

The Distinctive Nature of Scientific Publishing

1. No royalties for authors: Researchers and peer reviewers are unpaid, unlike musicians or filmmakers.
2. Publicly funded research: Much of Indian science is taxpayer-funded, yet access is privatized.
3. Exorbitant subscriptions: Institutions pay lakhs for a single journal. Publishers justify costs via “quality control” but enjoy 30%+ profit margins, raising concerns of rent-seeking.

The Global Controversy Around Sci-Hub

1. Copyright infringement: Courts in the U.S., Europe, and now India have ruled against Sci-Hub.
2. Essential access tool: For countless researchers, Sci-Hub was the only means to access knowledge, especially outside elite universities.
3. Contempt charges: Alexandra Elbakyan allegedly violated court orders by running Sci-Net, a mirror service.
4. Declining relevance: Technical unreliability and growing open-access alternatives are reducing its utility.

The Vision of One Nation, One Subscription

1. Government-led subscription: Outlay of ₹6,000 crore (2023–2026) for bulk access to 13,000 journals.
2. Phase I focus: All public institutions; Phase II may include private ones.
3. Equal access: Seeks to eliminate inequities between elite and smaller research centres.
4. Limitations: Independent researchers and those at private centres remain excluded until Phase II.

ONOS in the Context of Global Open-Access Movements

1. Global open-access movement: Over half of papers are already open access through preprints and repositories.
2. U.S. policy (2026): All federally funded research must be open.
3. EU Horizon Europe: Similar open-access mandate.
4. India’s challenge: At a time when the world moves toward open access, ONOS risks becoming an expensive detour.

Structural Flaws in Scholarly Publishing

1. Dependence on foreign publishers: ONOS continues India’s reliance on Western journals.
2. Copyright transfer: Indian researchers must still give away rights to their work.
3. Pay-to-publish dilemma: Funds freed at institutions may shift to open-access journals, but may ignore institutional repositories.
4. Need for rights retention: Policies like Harvard/MIT (mandatory deposit in repositories) could empower Indian researchers.

Conclusion

The Sci-Hub ban highlights the persistent inequities in access to scientific knowledge. While ONOS is a step forward, it risks being a band-aid solution unless paired with deeper reforms: indigenous publishing capacity, national repositories, and copyright retention policies. India must not merely manage the symptoms of an exploitative system but must cure the disease by reclaiming knowledge as a public good.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2024] ‘’What is the present world scenario of Intellectual Property Rights? Although India is second in the world to file patents, still only a few have been commercialized. Explain the reasons behind this less commercialization.”

Linkage: The Sci-Hub ban and ONOS scheme reflect how IPR in scientific publishing creates barriers to access despite research being publicly funded. Globally, publishers extract high profits through restrictive copyright, mirroring the broader challenge of IPR becoming a tool of rent-seeking rather than innovation. India’s weak indigenous publishing ecosystem and overdependence on foreign journals parallel the problem of low commercialization of patents—both highlight the gap between innovation output and practical accessibility/utility.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now