The Curious Case of New Invention

Section 2(1) (j) of the Patents Act, 1970 defines the ‘invention’ as a new product or a process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application. The Act defined the terms ‘inventive step’ and ‘capable of industrial application’ under Section 2(1) (j) (a) and Section 2(1) (c) respectively. However what is ‘new’ was not defined and left to be interpreted using the provisions of Section 13.

Interestingly, we also have Section 2(1) (l) which defines “new invention” but the term has not been used anywhere in the Act. The term sounds redundant in light of definition of term “invention”. We cannot resist arguing that when an invention is itself new, what sense does the term “new invention” makes. Every invention, in order to obtain a grant, has to fit in the definition of invention under Section (2) (1) (j). Moreover, a patent is granted under the Act for an invention and not for a “new invention” as per Section 2(1) (m). Although  Section 13 clearly marks out as to when an invention would be anticipated, it was desired that a proper definition clause be inserted in order to define what is ‘new’.

It is apparent from the legislative history of the 2005 amendment to the Patents Act, 1970 that such proposal was forwarded so that frivolous claims are not filed and the patent office is not unduly burdened. It was accepted that inventors are technical persons and in all likelihood they would not read provisions of Section 13 so as to determine the novelty of their invention. The legislature thought that it was prudent to incorporate the definition of ‘new’ so that the inventors are well aware of the eligibility of their claims. However, it can be inferred from the attached document that the Legislature approved the addition of clause “new” invention and what finally came into existence was “new invention”.

It is crystal clear that the term “new invention” is a product of legislative drafting error. There is no cogent reason for defining “new invention” when the term “invention” is already defined. However, it is surprising that this error is still not rectified by the Government nor this section would ever be interpreted by the courts since the same is redundant. This is precisely the reason that the term is not used anywhere else in the scheme of the Act. The Amendment Bill of 2005 had more such ambiguous definitions such as definition of the term “pharmaceutical substance” which defines pharmaceutical substance as ‘any new entity involving one or more inventive steps’. According to this definition every invention under Section 2(1) (j) would fall under the said definition. It must be noted that the Amendment Bill was passed without much deliberation and without referring to Standing Committee or any other Technical Committee.

Read More

CASTRATION – A SOLUTION?

Author: Pulkit Gopalkrishan Popli, (2nd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

“Issue writ, direction or order to the Union of India, the respondent No. 1 to consider to impose castration as an additional punishment for child sex abusers and child rapists;

Issue writ, direction, or order to the respondent No.2 (Ministry of Women and Child Development) to frame guidelines in regard to the protection of the children from sexual abuse and impose castration as an additional punishment for the rape of the minor girls to protect their constitutional rights.”

Source: Google Image

This was the prayer of the Supreme Court Women Lawyers Association (SCWLA) v. Union of India & Anr.[i] that was heard by the Honorable Supreme Court by the bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice NV Ramana on January 11, 2016. The bench clearly mentioned that the law should not be made sentimentally or emotionally and distanced itself from issuing any such direction or punishment as there is a law already available for the same. But the court further said that the parliament may go on to amend the penal provisions to award the harsher punishment for raping girl child and may also define the term 'child' in respect of rape as the offence.

Castration as defined by the Merriam Webster’s dictionary means the removal or to deprive of the testes. The Castration may be done surgically or chemically by anti-androgens. The demand of castration as punishment for the sexual offences is not new and has been voiced from time to time.  The Madras High Court in October 2015 in the case of Jonathan Robinson v.  The Inspector of Police[ii] perhaps got sentimental or emotional about the same offence and went on to suggest the castration as the punishment. Justice Kirubakaran in this judgment in the very first paragraph has very strongly and heavily recommended the punishment saying that the brutality of the offence would justify the punishment. Further, taking a dig at the Human Rights Activists, Honorable Justice has said that they are aware that there would be a lot of hue and cry by the people who claim themselves as the Human Rights Activists but they should also think about the human rights of the victims and the agony and suffering that they have suffered.

Justice Verma Committee Report of 2013 in paragraph 40 on the Castration as penalty mentions

“We note that it would be unconstitutional and inconsistent with basic human rights treaties for the State to expose any citizen without their consent to potentially dangerous medical side effects. For this reason we do not recommend mandatory chemical castration of any type as a punishment for sex offenders. For the same reason the government of India also does not prescribe chemical castration as a family planning method.”

If the reliance is put on the report of Asian Centre of Human Rights, India's Hell Holes: Child Sexual Assault in Juvenile Justice Homes, more than 48,838 child rape cases were recorded from 2001 to 2011 and that India saw an increase of 336% of child rape cases from 2001 (2,113 cases) to 2011 (7,112 cases). The report of National Crime Records Bureau 2013, in Chapter 6 very proudly mentions that a total of 12,363 cases of child rape were reported in the country during 2013 as compared to 8,541 in 2012 accounting for an increase of 44.7% during the year 2013. Maximum of child rape cases were reported in Madhya Pradesh (2,112 cases) followed by Maharashtra (1,546 cases) and Uttar Pradesh (1,381 cases). These three States together accounted for 40.8% of the total child rape cases reported in the country. On an average, 3 children out of one lakh children population are victims of rape. For population of every one lakh children , maximum of such incidents were reported in Mizoram and A & N Island (16 children each) followed by Delhi (14 children), Sikkim and Goa (12 children each).

Though there has been a strong rise in the support for the abolition of death penalty and harsh punishments such as castration, Guam has recently passed “Chemical Castration for Sex Offenders Act” in September 2015 which requires the chemical castration of the offenders going out on parole to minimize the risk. This Act was passed after the alarming rise in the number of Children related offences in Guam. It has also received a mixed response.

Now, with the huge number of the offences throughout the country, it is hard to predict whether the sentiments of Justice Kirubakaran are in the right direction or the logics of Justice Misra and Justice Ramana. But one thing is clear that India is one of the 5 countries with the highest number of Child abuses and this problem needs immediate and effective solution, either by parliament or by judiciary. 

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

---

[i] Writ Petition (C) No. 4 of 2016 [PIL]

[ii] Crl. O.P.(MD) No. 11735 of 2014

Read More

Compensatory Afforestation Fund Bill – A Potential Solution For A Potent Problem

Author: Abhishek Chansoria, (2nd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

Amid the chaotic and inefficient Parliament’s monsoon session, some key legislation could not see the light of the day. Shadowed under the highly debated GST Bill or the Land Acquisition Bill was the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Bill, 2015.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order in GodavarmanThirumulpad v. Union of India [Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995], dated 30th October, 2002, observed that a Compensatory Afforestation Fund may be created in which all the monies received from the user agencies shall be deposited which shall be utilized for plantations, protection of forests, wildlife protection and other related activities.

Source: wikimedia.org (labeled for reuse)

By introducing additional compensatory afforestation on the parties using the diverted forest land for non-forest use under the Forest (Conservation) Act, the bill envisages to create a mechanism to give tangible compensation to the forest cover and the nature.

Interestingly, a temporary structure created by the Supreme Court namely the ad hoc Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) has an unspent amount of more than Rs. 3,80,00,00,00,000/- (Thirty Eight Thousand Crores).

With the provisions for constitution of two authorities, at the National and State level, the Bill seems very promising. The National CAMPA consists of an Executive Committee and a Monitoring Group and the State CAMPA would have a Steering Committee and an Executive Committee. The most effective part of the whole act seems to be the constitution of these committees which is done under Section 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Bill. With the emanation of the environmental jurisprudence in India, several authorities have been constituted. The above-referred sections name heads of various authorities, initiatives and started by the Government along with the inclusion of environmentalists and NGOs.

The Bill delegates the powers to make rules regarding the investment of the monies in the Fund to the National and State Authority along with the provisions for audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India.

The Bill recognizes it to be a key authority which is reflected by its constitution. The provisions for striving for working with transparency and accountability are included in the Bill.

As it has not yet passed by the Parliament, some of the issues which are prima facie evident in the Bill could be addressed for avoiding future ambiguity.

One of the issues which are not included in the Bill is the jurisdiction of the courts in the matter of disputes. The investments might also include the investments in more than one state. Disputes arising out of these arrangements logically seem to be addressed under Article 131 of the Constitution but whether the National Green Tribunal should have any say in these or any other disputes is yet to be answered under the legislation.

Another key issue is the procedure for disqualification and the nature of enquiry which should be followed. The Bill does talk about who would be disqualified to be a member of any of the two authorities but the procedure of determining the same is yet to be formulated.

This is a key piece of legislation which has taken another step towards environmental protection by including affirmative and compensatory actions. The Supreme Court has done a commendable job by taking up this issue and giving necessary guidelines which have been well reflected in the proposed Bill. Only if good intentions could lead to good governance, hence, proper execution of the Bill is important. It could either be another one of the Act which only has ‘environment protection’ in its objectives or could be a reason for a watershed event to finally address the issue substantially.

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More

Weekly Legal Updates

Here we are... to begin this new session. We start with the updates from last week. 

The Supreme Court in a recent judgment has ruled that CCTV cameras should be installed in the prisons within one year and not later than that. The court has also suggested that all lock-ups in the country should have CCTV cameras installed as per the satisfaction of the police commissioner/DGP concerned. This was, however, left to the discretion of the respective states and union territories. The Supreme Court has also said that every police station should have at least two women constables to deal with women who are accused or suspects.

The Supreme Court came down heavily on the Central Government for not filing a counter affidavit in a petition questioning the functioning of the Juvenile Justice Boards (JJBs) across the country. The Social justice bench of the Apex Court, while imposing Rs.25,000 cost on the Ministry of Women and Child Development remarked “You are not even bothered to file your affidavit. You will have to pay the cost”. The bench, was hearing a Public Interest Litigation seeking proper implementation of Juvenile Justice Act and its rules. The Court had sought complete details on the pendency of cases, frequency of its sittings, vacancy of posts and other related issues.

The Bombay High Court has denied the relief under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act to a woman who was living with a married man for 15 years. The Additional Sessions Judge had ruled that the woman was in a “live-in relationship” with the married man and was entitled to relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence (DV) Act. The Court observed that since they had been in a relationship for almost 15 years, common sense required that she should have made enquiries about his marital status. The Court also noted that the woman had not been able to give a single instance where they had appeared as husband and wife in the society on any occasion of marriage or party. The Court hence ruled that such a relationship cannot be relationship in the nature of marriage. She and her daughters were therefore, not entitled for any relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.  The Court however noted that the daughters may be entitled for relief under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal procedure.

A PIL has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the appointment of Mr. K.V. Chaudhary as the Central Vigilance Commissioner and Mr. T.M. Bhasin as the Vigilance Commissioner as being “illegal and arbitrary”. The petitioners have claimed that there was complete non transparency on the part of the Central Government in making the appointment of the CVC and VC. The Petitioners have also claimed that the appointments violate the principles of ‘impeccable integrity’ and ‘institutional integrity’ laid down in the landmark judgments of Vineet Narain case (1998) 1 SCC 226 and Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) case (2011) 4 SCC 1.

Yakub Memon, convicted in the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the death warrant for his execution scheduled on July 30. According to his plea the death warrant is illegal because it did not follow the proper procedure prescribed by the Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Supreme Court of India in a ruling (DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Union of India and Another – Writ Petition (C) No. 441 Of 2015) has reaffirmed the settled legal position that under Article 32 it will not interfere with an administrative order where the constitutionality of the statute or the order made there under has not been challenged on the ground of contravention of Fundamental Rights. The Apex Court added that no question other than that relating to the Fundamental Rights will be determined in a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution.

The SC has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation that came up before the three Judges Bench praying “to stop the use of names and images of gods and goddesses for commercial exploitation”.  The court dismissed the petition remarking that “You have raised the issue which concerns the faith of the people. This country has 33,000 crore gods. Sorry.”

We hope that this summarizes the last week's News. Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Until next post of weekly News updates.

Anjana Srinivasan, (3rd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

For 'OFF Court.'

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More

Happy B'day: OFF Court

Hi Friends!!

On 24th January 2014, four students (Antriksh Mishra, Tanveer Verma, Suraj Badrayan and Myself) of IIT-Kharagpur Law School started this blog with a simple goal to set a platform that can bring out the writing skills of the students of our School. It has been a year since then and we have been extremely excited with the support and encouragements from our friends, seniors, juniors, alumni and faculty members. We have received appreciations, criticisms, suggestions and enthusiasm from the RG family. We are thankful to all for helping us evolve.

I thank all the formal members of blog team from current 1st year and 2nd year. I specially thank our immediate senior batch for their contributions as posts and their valued time in editing, apart from their moral support. I thank RG-2015 batch students, this blog has found tremendous support, contributions and encouragement from  this batch. I thank specially some of close friends form RG-2015 who have provided technical and moral support to us.

Finally, I am thanking the other three.. Antriksh, Tanveer and Suraj. Words can't express my gratefulness towards you guys!!

The management of the blog is transferred to the next batch (RG-2016). It is now going from all 'Boy's Team' to all 'Girl's Team'. We wish Smriti Sanjgotra, Shweta Khurana and Anjana Srinivasan, the very best and hope that they will do their great.

Thanks & Regards!

Best Wishes!!!

Manish Kumar

On behalf of 'Founding Members' of 'OFF Court'.

Read More

Weekly Legal Updates

We bring you the updates for last week. Hope it updates you with all the news from legal world.

Updates: 03th January to 11th January 2015:
In a major move the Supreme Court has revised rules regarding its selection of judicial clerks which allows non-NLU students to apply.  The new rules, published on the Supreme Court’s website, specifies that applicants can come from any law college accredited by the Bar Council of India (BCI).

The President of India  promulgated the Citizenship (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 on January 06, 2015 with immediate effect which provides for the following amendments to the Indian Citizen Act, 1955:

• At present one year continuous stay in India is mandatory for Indian Citizenship which is relaxed stating that if the Central Government is satisfied that special circumstances exist, it may, after recording such circumstances in writing, relax the period of twelve months specified upto a maximum of thirty days which may be in different breaks.

• To enable for registration as Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) by a minor, whose parents are Indian Citizens.

• To enable for registration as Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) by a child or a grand-child or a great grandchild of such a citizen.

• To enable for registration as Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) by such spouse of a citizen of India or spouse of an OCI registered under Section 7A and whose marriage has been registered and subsisted for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the application under this section.

• In respect of existing PIO card holders central government may, by notification in Official Gazette, specify a particular date from which all existing PIO card holders will be deemed to be OCI card holders.

The Delhi High court dismissed a plea against Amir Khan starrer movie- PK, holding that there was no substance in the allegations leveled against the movie, in the PIL filed by Ajay Gautam. The Court also observed that the provision for appeal against the CBFC’s decision on certification of films was restricted to film-makers. Mr. Gautam had alleged that the movie defamed and maligned the Hindu religion and culture. It was also contended that the movie hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus.

In a submission made before the Apex Court, the Central Government has said that it wants to stop NGOs that do not submit their balance sheets of last three years. The Central Government represented by the Additional Solicitor General P S Patwalia submitted to the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India HL Dattu that the submission of balance sheets by the NGOs must be a condition precedent for grant of funds.

The Supreme Court has published the in-house mechanism adopted by it in 1999 to deal with complaints against the judges of the Supreme Court and High Court in its website. This has been published pursuant to its judgment in the sexual harassment case involving a sitting judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In the above judgment the Court relied on the in-house mechanism and had scrapped the investigation initiated by the Madhya Pradesh Chief Justice on the ground that it was not in compliance with the in-house mechanism.

Siemens, Dong Energy and London Array – the world's biggest operating offshore wind farm – are all heading for a UK court showdown with German turbine-maker Enercon over alleged patent infringement of 'Storm Control' technology developed by the latter's founder, Aloys Wobben. The Wobben Properties lawsuit names Siemens, Dong and turbine-installation specialist A2Sea as defendants.  The 630MW London Array – which is already using 175 3.6MW Siemens turbines – is the subject of a similar but separate action, and is set to join the other defendants in contesting the case at a High Court hearing in London, currently scheduled for June. Enercon had previously successfully sued turbine OEM Gamesa in Spain over the 'storm control' patent, a verdict which is currently being appealed.

We hope that this summarizes the last week's News. Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Until next post of weekly News updates.

Anjana Srinivasan, (2nd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

For 'OFF Court.'

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More

News Updates

We bring you the updates for last week. Hope it updates you with all the news from legal world.

15 December 2014

The Bombay High Court refused to entertain a Writ filed by an advocate challenging the imposition of service tax on advocates. So the business clients of individual lawyers and law firms will continue to pay service tax as mandated by the Finance Act.

16 December 2014

In the case of Italian Marines who are accused of killing two Indian fishermen, the Supreme Court denied the plea of one Italian Marine to extend the stay in Italy on health grounds and the plea of the other Marine to travel to Italy for Christmas. The Court held that they want the system to work and that the relief cannot be granted even though the trial has not commenced. Therefore, the accused must come to India and the charge-sheet be filed.

17 December 2014

The Delhi High Court which had earlier passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the Chinese manufacturer, Xiaomi, allowed the company to sell and import handsets which have chipsets of Qualcomm Inc., till 5 February 2015. Xiaomi argued that Erricsson had suppressed the facts to obtain an injunction. Qualcomm has a license from Erricsson and therefore the license does not make Xiaomi an infringer of Ericsson’s patent rights.

The Central Information Commission (CIC) on 17 December ordered that information relating to the death of the former Chief Justice of India J S Verma be disclosed to RTI activist Mr. S C Agrawal. The Commissioner, M Sridhar Acharyulu said, “Such letters (documents) from eminent citizens from all walks of life on death of a devoted and honest jurist who spent his post-retirement life in a rented house is indeed a matter of serious concern”.

18 December 2014

The Supreme Court bench has extended the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu J. Jayalalthaa’s bail by 4 months and directed the Karnataka High Court to constitute a special bench to hear her appeal expeditiously and decide it within 3 months, till 18 April 2015. The former CM challenged her conviction in Karnataka High Court in a ‘Disproportionate Assets Case’ after being found guilty.

19 December 2014

Three judge bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals in relation to the Coal Ordinance. The deadline to pay the penalty is 31 December which was marked from 24 September judgment in which the 214 of the 218 coal blocks allocations was quashed.

22 December 2014

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a batch of Writ Petitions which were filed praying for protection as a married couple as they had tied the knot after the girls got their religion converted from Hindu to Islam and then performed Nikah. The court observed that “Conversion to another religion basically requires change of faith and belief of personal relations of a major individual of sound mind by his free will, with what he/she regards as cosmos, his/her Make or Creator, which he/she believes, regulates the existence of insentient beings and the forces of Universe.”

24 December 2014

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) has released the 1^st draft on the National IPR Policy submitted by the ‘Think Tank’ chaired by Justice Prabha Sridevan. The draft policy can be accessed here.

26 December 2014

The Delhi High Court issued a notice to RBI on the decision to impose a limit of five transactions per month from the customers’ own bank ATM and charging Rs. 20/- per transaction beyond it. RBI had also imposed a limit of three transactions per month from ATMs of other banks, located in the six metro centres- Mumbai, New Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata, Bengaluru and Hyderabad. During the hearing, the court said, “You (banks) are unnecessary taxing your account holders.” The response has been sought by 18 February 2015.

The Delhi High Court distinguished between Uber and Ola cabs and refused to give a similar order in favor or Uber. Ola was given relief as they are only a technology platform and not a radio taxi operator. The court observed that ‘You (Uber) take money from customers and give it to drivers. So you are providing the service.’ By the virtue of December 8 Government Order, Uber had been effectively banned in India.

We hope that this summarizes the News from 15th to 27th December . Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Until next post of weekly News updates.

Wishing you all a very delightful and successful New Year. 

Manish Kumar, (3rd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More

Weekly Legal Updates

We bring you the updates for last week. Hope it updates you with all the news from legal world.

8^th December 2014:

The division bench of Supreme Court has struck down the legality of provisions in certain circulars which banned hookah smoking and sale of cigarettes in designated smoking areas. With this three High Court (Bombay, Gujarat and Madras) decisions is overturned. The illegality of circulars was found on the basis of it being violative of COTPA Act, 2003 and Rules.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear a plea challenging the recent ordinance on Coal Block Allocations which is to be heard on 6^th December. The Court had earlier declined a batch of petition by private companies seeking that it re-look its September 24 order cancelling 214 coal blocks allocated from 1993 to 2011.

9^th December 2014:

A Delhi Court has held fourmen guilty for murdering L.N. Mishra, the then Railway Minster in a bomb blast on January 2, 1975. This trial is one of the longest drawn trials in India. Over 200 witnesses were examined in the case. Though the charge-sheet was filed in 1977 in a CBI court in Patna, the conviction has come only after about 40 years of the murder. Earlier in 2012, the accused approached the Supreme Court for quashing the trial against them as the case has not been concluded even after 37 years, which was not accepted by the apex court and was returned to the Delhi Court. The quantum of sentence would be pronounced on 15th December.

10^th December 2014:

The Central Government announced that section 309, attempt to commit suicide, will be deleted from Indian Penal Code (IPC) which will decriminalize the act of commitment of suicide. The decision is based on the request by 18 states and 44 Union territories to implement the Recommendations made in this regard by the Law Commission of India in its 210^th Report. The report made reference to P. Rathinam v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court of India held that Section 309 of IPC is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The same was overruled in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, however The Mental Health Bill of 2013 did attempt to decriminalize the same by putting presumption of mental illness on the persons attempting to commit suicide.

The Kerala High Court has concluded that the DLF violated the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification (CRZ Notification) and therefore ordered the demolition of the construction under DLF project in Kochi. The Court held that:

“Authorities are constituted under various enactments to see that the environment is protected and to see that the present topography which keeps the ecological balance is not disturbed. The purpose of these laws is to preserve nature for posterity. If the violation of these laws is allowed to become the order of the day, the existence of life would be at peril. Right to life guaranteed by our Constitution takes in innumerable rights, including the right to enjoy nature in the present form. Indiscriminate invasion of nature to the detriment of others is an invasion of right to life. Nature which is the property of the nation cannot be allowed to be scrambled by a minority violating all laws.”

11^th December 2014:

The Delhi High Court injuncted Xiaomi, a Chinese phone manufacturer, from selling, advertising, manufacturing or importing devices that infringe the Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) in question. The same SEPs are also a subject matter of a pending litigation between Ericsson and Micromax, Gionee, Intex.  In an ex-parte order passed against Xiaomi, the court also directed Customs Department to stop import of such products as per the IPR Rules, 2007. It is worth noting that Xiaomi managed to sell out its 50,000 handset in just 6 seconds on 8^th December.

12^th December:

Hearing an appeal filed by the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW) against a judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT), the Supreme Court had to decide the question of benefits of an extra amount in pensions on account of disability due to service conditions of the ex-servicemen of the Army. The Bench headed by HL Dattu, CJI, said:

“They are in the line of fire. They sacrifice their life for you and for us. This is the least you could do for them. The government can have at least this much of budget for its soldiers who are dying for the people of this country everyday. What is the point of having these memorials and placards saluting our defence personnel if you litigate against the disabled soldiers till the Supreme Court. You should pay them,”

The Government agreed to comply with the order. The Supreme Court dismissed the matter, as a result disposing 880 appeals on the issue. It has also been reported that around 15,000 retired soldiers will be benefited due to the order.

The Social Justice Bench constituted to hear cases pertaining to “Social Justice” matters began with the division bench of Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice UU Lalit. The bench will take up fresh matters alongside the pending matters and will sit every Friday at 2PM at the Supreme Court. The bench was constituted to achieve the Constitutional goal of securing social justice for the citizens of the country.

The Supreme Court has dismissed Bayer’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the decision of the Bombay High Court. This dismissal will continue the effectiveness of grant of compulsory license to Natco for Bayer’s anticancer drug Nexavar. This has continued the Indian Courts’ stand to ensure the access to medicine across the country.

We hope that this summarizes the last week's News. Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.

Until next post of weekly News updates.

Manish Kumar, (3rd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

For 'OFF Court.'

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More

A Tribute to Justice Krishna Iyer

Author: Anjana Srinivasan, (2nd Year student of IIT Kharagpur Law School)

Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer has been hailed as the “judicial conscience of India” and credited with the responsibility of “humanizing law in India”. He was a ceaseless crusader of human rights and had a passion for compassion. He was a rare combination of a legislator, a minster and a judge.

Justice Krishna Iyer was born on November 15, 1915 to a leading criminal lawyer V.V. Rama Ayyar in Thalassery. He had his education at the Basel Mission School, Thalassery, Victoria College, Palakkad, Annamalai University and Madras Law College. He started legal practice in 1937 under his father in the Thalassery and appeared for workers and peasants in several agrarian struggle-related cases in his early years of practice.He became a member of the Madras Legislative Assembly in 1952. After the 1957 Kerala Assembly Elections, when the first Communist government in Kerala headed by E.M.S. Namboodiripad came to power, he held portfolios such as law, justice, home, irrigation, power, prisons, social welfare and inland navigation in the. He passed several pieces of people-oriented legislations during his tenure as a minister. He resumed his legal practice in August 1959 and continued the legal profession after he lost the 1965 Assembly election. He was appointed a judge of the Kerala High Court on July 2, 1968. He served as a Member of the Law Commission from 1971 to 1973.He was elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court on July 17, 1973, and retired on November, 14, 1980.

Justice Krishna Iyer’s has delivered landmark judgments during his tenure as a judge.His judgments are considered to be a thesis on the subject. His judgments have a human touch and are presented in an artistic manner. Let us have a look at some of his judgments that have created history and revolutionized the legal world.

He threw open the doors of the judiciary to every person of the country by emphasizing on the need for relaxing the rule of locus standi, in the case of Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar v. Union of India.

In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, he declared the practice of keeping undertrials with convicts in jail as inhumane, which earned him the title of “Father of prison jurisprudence”.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India case, Justice Iyer noted, “Personal liberty makes for the worth of the human person. Travel makes liberty worthwhile.” He expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the liberty to travel.

The jurisprudence of bail was humanized by Justice Iyer, which has been a lasting contribution to the liberation of under trial prisoners. In G Narasimhulu judgment, he observed, “It makes sense to assume that a man on bail has a better chance to prepare or present his case than one rendered to custody. And if public justice is to be promoted, mechanical detention should be demoted."

By interpreting Article 21 of the Indian Constitution Justice Iyer’s Bench directed the State to provide free legal services to an accused person in custody. He profoundly contributed to prison jurisprudence and humanisation of the sentencing system in India.

His greatest contribution to our constitutional jurisprudence is his landmark judgment in Samsher Singh. In whether the President or Governor have independent power than the Cabinet Justice Krishna Iyer observed, "the President, like the King, has not merely been constitutionally romanticized but actually vested with a pervasive and persuasive role…he is not rival center of power in any sense…the President and Governor shall exercise their formal constitutional powers only upon and in accordance with the advice of their Ministers save in a few well-known exceptional situations like (a) the choice of Prime Minister (Chief Minister), restricted though this choice is by the paramount consideration that he should command a majority in the House; (b) the dismissal of a Government which has lost its majority in the House but refuses to quit office; (c) the dissolution of the House where an appeal to the country is necessitous."

Summing up in the words of Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, a former Attorney General of India:

"Mr. Krishna Iyer has a heart whose natural generosity and glowing warmth would scorch out any trace of malice or meanness. He cannot nurture a grudge towards any one, including unkind critics who have approached him with singular lack of humanity and understanding and who in learned tomes have raged and raged against the spreading of the light. Like Newman’s True Gentleman, he had too much good sense to be affronted by insults and was too well employed to remember injuries…There are judges who are more erudite than Justice Krishna Iyer, judges who have an excellent memory for Supreme Court and House of Lord citations, judges who can master the record of a case in a few minutes. But the one essential quality that distinguishes him from his judicial brethren and puts him in a class of his own is compassion. He took human suffering seriously and dispensed justice with compassion, which he possessed in abundance .”

His loss is a great loss to the legal fraternity.  He was not only a legislator, a minister and a judge but he was humane too. The humaneness made him stand apart from his peers. Let us all pay our tributes to such a great personality. Let us all pledge that we will be compassionate to our fellow human beings and work for the holistic development of the society at large.

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More