1. Core Legal Answer & Context: The statement is unequivocally true. An invention, to be granted a patent, must satisfy stringent statutory conditions. A patent grants a temporary monopoly right to the inventor, preventing others from making, using, selling, or importing the invention without permission. To justify this exclusive right, the invention must represent a genuine advancement in technology and contribute to the public good. These conditions ensure that only truly innovative and useful creations are protected, balancing the inventor's rights with public access to knowledge and fostering further innovation.

Critically examining the statement involves understanding these conditions and their rationale. The primary conditions are novelty, inventive step (non-obviousness), and industrial applicability (utility). Additionally, the invention must not fall under the categories of non-patentable subject matter.

2. Relevant Statutes and Sections:

• The Patents Act, 1970 (as amended):
  • Section 2(1)(j): Defines 'invention' as a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application.
  • Section 2(1)(ja): Defines 'inventive step' as a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art.
  • Section 2(1)(l): Defines 'new invention' as any invention or technology which has not been anticipated by publication in any document or used in the country or elsewhere in the world before the date of filing of patent application with complete specification, i.e., the subject matter has not fallen in public domain or is not part of the state of the art.
  • Section 2(1)(ac): Defines 'capable of industrial application' as the invention is capable of being made or used in an industry.
  • Section 3: Lists what are not inventions (non-patentable subject matter). This includes:
    • Frivolous inventions or those contrary to natural laws (Section 3(a)).
    • Inventions contrary to public order or morality or causing serious prejudice to human, animal or plant life or health or to the environment (Section 3(b)).
    • Mere discovery of a scientific principle or the formulation of an abstract theory or discovery of any living thing or non-living substance occurring in nature (Section 3(c)).
    • The mere discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in the enhancement of the known efficacy of that substance or the mere discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance or of the mere use of a known process, machine or apparatus unless such known process results in a new product or employs at least one new reactant (Section 3(d) - crucial for pharmaceutical patents).
    • A mathematical or business method or a computer program per se or algorithms (Section 3(k)).
    • A literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any other aesthetic creation whatsoever including cinematographic works and television productions (Section 3(l)).

3. Important Landmark Cases:

• Novartis AG v. Union of India (AIR 2013 SC 1311): This landmark case critically examined Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which prevents 'evergreening' of patents. The Supreme Court denied a patent for an improved version of a cancer drug (Gleevec), holding that it did not demonstrate enhanced efficacy over the known substance, thus reinforcing the strict interpretation of 'inventive step' and 'new invention' for pharmaceutical products.
• Enercon (India) Ltd. v. Aloys Wobben (2013 (54) PTC 1 (SC)): This case dealt with the interpretation of 'inventive step' and 'obviousness'. The Supreme Court emphasized that an invention must not be obvious to a 'person skilled in the art' and must involve a technical advance or economic significance to qualify for a patent.

4. Clear Conclusion: The statement is entirely accurate. The conditions of novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability are indispensable for patent grant, ensuring that patents are awarded only for genuine technological advancements. The critical examination reveals that these conditions, along with the exclusions under Section 3, serve to prevent trivial patents, 'evergreening', and the monopolization of fundamental scientific discoveries, thereby fostering true innovation and preventing abuse of the patent system. The Indian patent regime, particularly after amendments and judicial interpretations, reflects a robust framework for evaluating patentability.