[A big thanks to Mr. Prashant Reddy for his inputs on the post.]
Quickly after Yogesh’s weblog current submit (right here) highlighting the change within the Head of the IT workplace of the Controller Normal of Patents, Designs, and Commerce Marks (CGPDTM) in gentle of a 27 August 2024 notification (pdf), it made sense to take a look at the broader points which were dealing with the CGPDTM. The aforementioned notification has come after the All India Patent Officer’s Welfare Affiliation (AIPOWA) filed a Civil Writ Petition (WP) within the Delhi Excessive Courtroom (DHC) alleging arbitrary reallocation, withdrawal, and abandonment of patent functions and evaluate petitions by the Info Know-how (IT) Division of the CGPDTM (Case No. 8398/2024). In the meantime, one other writ petition lies within the DHC in opposition to the CGPDTM by the AIPOWA, filed this August, difficult the appointment of Unnat P. Pandit because the CGPDTM (Case No. 11278/2024). Sadly, this isn’t the primary occasion that the CGPDTM has confronted this a lot flak. The WPs solely add to the prevailing notion of instability inside the workplace. A lot has been questioned in regards to the establishment over time of its existence, and the small print of those are what this submit will go in-depth into.
AIPOWA’s Claims In opposition to the CGDPTM Functioning
First issues first, let’s see what are the problems that these WPs by AIPOWA within the DHC increase. AIPOWA is a non-profit organisation with the only real goal of safeguarding the welfare of the members, consisting of over 600 Group A service officers working as quasi-judicial officers in patent workplaces in Kolkata, Chennai, New Delhi and Mumbai.
There are a complete of two WPs pending between the identical events in the identical court docket, nevertheless it’s presently not clear if they’re interlinked or fully remoted from each other.
The primary one (with regards to the image above), is a WP that raised considerations in regards to the alleged violation of Part 73(4) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970 by the IT Division of the CGPDTM. The WP claims that the IT division below the CGPDTM has been arbitrarily reallocating, withdrawing, and abandoning patent functions and evaluate petitions, which undermines the Patent Officers’ capacity to carry out their quasi-judicial roles impartially. Though the system was designed for automated allocation with out human intervention, it has been overridden with out the required written orders from the Controller, as mandated by Part 73(4). Reassigning electrical patent circumstances to controllers in unrelated fields primarily based on High quality Management crew emails, reallocating circumstances post-hearing with out correct documentation, improperly transferring evaluate petitions, and reviving refused functions and not using a evaluate petition have been a few of the issues that the WP highlighted. In response, AIPOWA has requested the DPIIT to analyze these points, impose stricter controls, and implement common audits, highlighting inconsistencies with the automated allocation system mentioned within the Filo Edtech v Union of India case. The tenth September 2024 order (pdf) has rescheduled the matter to 14 January 2025. On condition that this rescheduling was merely as a result of paucity of time to take up the matter on that date, a 4-month delay appears a bit too lax.
On to the second: It’s a extra just lately filed WP, within the type of a Public curiosity Litigation (PIL), which challenges the appointment of the CGPDTMl. Some excerpts of the PIL have been shared right here by Ms. Jaya Bhatnagar. As somebody attempting to comply with these hearings, it feels a bit like a wild goose chase at this level for the reason that case retains getting adjourned to the long run. The 14 August Order (pdf) postponed the listening to to twenty seventh August 2024, and the twenty seventh August one (pdf) to 4 September. Apparently, each the earlier postponements have been accomplished on the behest of the Petitioner’s counsel and never the opposite approach round. As an admittedly inexperienced regulation pupil, this does appear odd to me. Nevertheless, I request readers who might perceive higher, to assist clarify within the feedback whether it is maybe not so uncommon. However, the hearings on September 4 (pdf) appear to have offered substantive arguments relating to the validity of CGPDTM’s appointment, which will likely be mentioned within the upcoming components. The subsequent listening to is listed for 8 October 2024.
Quo Warranto?: An Overview of PIL Difficult Validity of CGPDTM’s Appointment
The PIL for the second WP in itself is an fascinating learn. Filed below Article 226 of the Structure, it’s an ‘pressing software’ to the Registrar, DHC below the bottom that the incumbent CGDPTM is just not certified to carry the submit and was chosen/nominated vide an arbitrary process with out correct and efficient commercial for filling up the submit. The PIL then gives an inventory of dates of occasions which I’ve recreated in a tabular method for simpler perusal:
Date | Occasion |
30.07.2007 | DoPT OM mandated the issuance of an open commercial for filling up posts. |
17.06.2010 | The DoPT OM restricted preliminary appointments to three years, with a 2-year extension attainable. |
31.12.2010 | The DoPT OM required Recruitment Guidelines for posts anticipated to final over one 12 months to make sure transparency and accountability. |
23.11.2019 | The DoPT letter required ACRs/APARs for the final 5 years for deputation appointments. |
11.11.2020 | The CGPDTM submit turned vacant with Mr. O. P. Gupta’s tenure ending, and since 2005 (marked by the withdrawal of CGPDTM Recruitment Guidelines, 2001), it has been stuffed below the Central Staffing Scheme. |
11.11.2020 | DoPT circulated a letter/commercial to authorities departments reporting vacancies for deputation below the Central Staffing Scheme, requiring ACRs from the final 5 years. A corrigendum dated 9.12.2020 added instructional {qualifications} to the necessities. |
16.11.2020 | JS(RR) obtained the extra cost for the submit of CGPDTM. |
15.09.2021 | The Search Committee’s preliminary assembly really helpful an open commercial for the CGPDTM submit. |
16.09.2021 | The Search Committee’s composition was abruptly modified, eradicating exterior members and forming a brand new committee. |
17.09.2021 | The brand new Search Committee held its first assembly and proposed to contemplate names instructed by its members. |
23.09.2021 | The brand new Search Committee held its remaining assembly and really helpful a panel of three names, together with Respondent No. 3 (UP Pandit), for the CGPDTM submit. |
Whereas the conclusion of those investigations stays to be seen, it’s to be famous that this declare is just not an remoted incident. A number of allegations have surfaced repeatedly in opposition to the CGPDTM. The subsequent part will give attention to the influence of those allegations on the general accountability of the CGPDTM’s workplace, extending past the 2 writ petitions and the current notification regarding the change within the IT Division head.
Smells like Bother: A Sequence of Blunders by the CGPDTM
Normally, whereas irregularities within the Patent Examiners’ Examination by the NTA (right here) have been one thing that created lots of uproar in March 2024, calling for suggestions on the IP administration of the nation in August 2024 (right here) additionally mirrored some constructive workings of the CGPDTM. Nonetheless, it seems a number of different points have arisen other than these two writs. simply the final two months, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chairperson had demanded corruption enquiries in opposition to the CGPDTM in March 2024 to the CVC (lined right here). Thereafter, in August 2024, the CGPDTM confronted scrutiny for delegating duties to contractual workers (mentioned in a superb submit by Md. Sabeeh Ahmad right here), permitting them to problem examination studies, which led to the necessity for revalidation of those orders via a newly carried out mechanism (authorized considerations surrounding such delegation have been mentioned right here). Moreover, this isn’t the primary occasion of battle between AIPOWA and the CGPDTM. AIPOWA just lately challenged the CGPDTM’s issuance of 259 present trigger notices in opposition to IPO officers and uncovered alleged administrative lapses involving the inflated buy of 1,200 private computer systems for ₹9,99,75,600 (bid doc right here) in July 2024. Enterprise line had reported that DPIIT has acknowledged that it’ll study the Controller Normal’s place and take additional motion as obligatory. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Commerce subsequently withdrew the SCNs in opposition to such officers (mentioned right here).
Now, within the proceedings held on September 4 for the second WP, UP Pandit was stripped of most of his powers by the Ministry, as reported by BusinessLine right here (paywalled). Pandit’s authorized crew argued that the PIL lacked real public curiosity, noting that the Affiliation had beforehand challenged varied CGPDTM selections, together with SCNs issued to officers. It somewhat uncanny to watch that in a span of every week, two main place holders of the CGPDTM workplace have had their powers usurped. The 27 August notification has already appointed Subhash Chandra Karol, Director of DPIIT, because the Head of the IT workplace of the CGPDTM and the information reporting of the 4th September hearings replicate the restriction of Pandit’s powers. This stripping of powers by the Ministry raises critical considerations in regards to the integrity of India’s IP administration in a broader sense and factors to deeper systemic points inside the workplace answerable for overseeing the IP regime within the nation. The stakes on this matter are removed from native and the warning expressed by Justice Manmohan throughout the circumstances mirrored the exact same. He suggested each events to train warning of their statements, highlighting the worldwide implications of the CGPDTM place.
Clearly, allegations in opposition to the CGPDTM are coming from all corners. Whereas too early to anticipate the results of the pending WPs, retaining in thoughts the historical past of the indictment of the CGDPTM (by the Ministry for irregularities in laptop purchases), there does lie a risk that the post-holder might have certainly dedicated a few of the errors or violations being claimed. Nevertheless, there’s additionally a bigger context to contemplate: Aren’t these allegations notably uncommon? Have they been totally investigated?
The current allegations appear somewhat imprecise and the proof that the Plaintiff might undergo the Courtroom will likely be determinative to evaluate how strongly the allegations lie. It’s doubtless that these WPs could be a response to underlying tensions on the Patent Workplace. It seems that Pandit has upset the workers, who are actually retaliating—traditionally, they’ve even sued CGPDTM for rising their workload. Readers might recall Dr. Basheer’s posts a over an identical problem (right here and right here). In brief – In 2008, a promotion spree led to many examiners being promoted to Controllers, disrupting the Examiner-to-Controller ratio and inflicting a scarcity of examiners. The brand new Controllers have been unwilling to deal with examination duties, prompting CG PH Kurian to require Assistant Controllers to step in. This mandate was challenged by some Assistant Controllers and stayed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
It’s additionally curious that the validity of the CGPDTM’s appointment is being challenged now, years after the very fact. He took cost again in April 2022. Whereas these issues with judicial selections backing them can nonetheless be seen to be precise blunders; for those who lie sub-judice, it’s troublesome to actually decide how a lot of that is simply smoke with out fireplace.