IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY 8th NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2021

IN
THE HONB’LE SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF CONSTITITION OF INDIANA)
S.L.P.(CIVIL) NO……………… OF 2021

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

DIZER INC. [PETITIONER]

VERSUS

UNION of INDIANA [RESPONDENT]

MEMORIAL on behalf of the PETITIONER

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... 02

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................................03

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................05

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ....................................................................................08

STATEMENT OF FACTS ....................................................................................................09

STATEMENT OF ISSUES....................................................................................................12

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ...........................................................................................13

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................... 15

PRAYER…………………………………………………...………………….32

2
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

& And

Art. Article

AIR All India Report

Co. Company

Ed. Edition

Govt. Government

Hon’ble Honourable

MRP Maximum Retail Price

No. Number

Ors. Others

Pvt. Private

Para. Paragraph

R&D Research and Development

Rs. Rupees

SCC Supreme Court Cases

3
SLP Special Leave Petition

TRIPS Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual

Property Rights
v./ vs. versus

WTO World Trade Organisation

4
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDIAN CASES
1. Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 520

2. Nihal Singh & Ors v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26

3. Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169.

4. State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007 decided on
December 9, 2016

5. Haryana State Industrial Corporation v. Cork Mfg. Co. (2007) 8 SCC 359

6. C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR1989 SC 1298; N Suriyakala v. A Mohan Doss & Ors.
(2007) 9 SCC 196

7. Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai (2004) 3 SCC 214

8. Balakrishna v. Rmaswami, AIR 1965 SC 195

9. Dale & Carrington Investment Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan (2005) 1 SCC 212

10. Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons. Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962
SC 1314

11. Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra (1952) AIR 991 (All

12. Sripur Paper Mills v. Commr. Of Wealth Tax (1970) AIR1520 (SC

13. Om Prakash Sood v. UOI (2003) 7 SCC 473(SC

14. E P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1947 SC 555: (1974) 3 SSC 3

15. Union of India v. International Trading Corporation, AIR 2003 SC 3983; Sunil Batra v. Delhi
Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 494

16. AL Kalra v. P&E Corporation of India, Limited, AIR 1984 SC 1361, 1367

17. Jagannath Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1245: (1962) 1 SCR 151

5
 18. Mohd Shaheb Mahboob v. Deputy Custodian, AIR 1961 SC 1657: (1962) 2 SCR 371

19. Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union, AIR 1999 SC 564

20. UOI v. Amrik Singh, AIR 1991 SC 564: (1991) 1 SCC 654

21. Monika Goel vs Rohini Goel, AIR 2010 SC 1099

22. Shantisar Builders v. Narayanan Khimalal Totamen, AIR 1990 SC 630

23. Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480

24. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. AIR 1978 SC 597

25. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325

26. Haryana Development Authority v. Dropadi Devi, (2005) 9 SCC 514

27. Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689

28. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., 1985 SCC (3) 545

29. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar R Nandkarni, AIR 1983 SC 109:
(1983) SCC 124

30. Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161

BOOKS
Commentary on the Constitution of India,D.D.Basu, C.K. Thakker& S.S. Subramani & T. S. Doabia&
B. P.
Banerjee eds., vol. 8, 8th ed. 2012
Constitutional Law of India, Dr. J N Pandey, Central Law Agency
Indian constitutional law, fifth edition, volume-i, M.P.Jain, Vedpal law House.
Khader: Law of Patents: with special focus on Pharma

STATUTES
Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996
The Constitution of India, 1950
6
The Patents Act, 1970

OTHERS
Jake Spring and Lisandra Paraguassu Brazil's Bolsonaro signs law that could break COVID-19
vaccine patent. [online]
Mark F.Schultz, Geneva Network. Trade secrecy and covid-19 [online]geneva-network.com
MSF briefing document,2021. Compulsory licenses the trips waiver and access to
Covid 19 medical technologies [online] msfaccess.org
United nations information service. 50 Years after Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
Signed, the City Still Plays Vital Role in International Relations. [online] us-unvienna.org
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969
Viswanathan, K., 2021. Manifest Arbitrariness and Plenary Legislation. [online] Bar and Bench -
Indian Legal news.

7
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 136 of The Constitution of
India.

“Article 136 of the Constitution of Indiana” reads as follows:

“136- Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court: 136 (1) Notwithstanding anything in this
Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, grant special leave to appeal from any
judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any
court or tribunal in the territory of India. “

“All of which is most respectfully submitted"

8
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

The special leave petition of the petitioner most respectfully showeth :-

1.That the State of Indiana is a Sovereign Democratic Republic country situated in the south-eastern
part of Masia. Post gaining independence, the drafters of the Constitution of Indiana laid special
emphasis on fundamental rights of the citizens. The Directive Principles of State Policy (“DPSP”),
enshrined in Part IV of the Constitution of Indiana reflect that Indiana is a welfare state and in
furtherance thereof the Government of Indiana has launched several programmes pertaining to health,
food safety, health insurances etc.

2. The Alliance Group base in the State of Indiana in 2017 introduced a proposal for setting a Vaccine
Research and Manufacturing Institute before the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare of Government
of Indiana which was accepted on the agreement that the Alliance Group would set up the institute in
partnership with the Government of Indiana whereby, the Government would invest 50% of the total
proposed amount. Notably, there are several controversies pertaining to the relation of alliance group
with political parties in power in Indiana. In 2019 the VERUM INSTITUTE started manufacturing and
supplying vaccines to the Central and State Government at marginal rates after inauguration.

3. Towards the end of 2019, the news of spread of a fatal virus named Mortal Virus A.k.a. MOVID-19
spread from the province of ‘Goohan’ in the State of ‘Myna’ and within no time the virus spread
throughout the world to an extent where the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared it as a
pandemic. In the month of March, 2020, the State of Indiana was hit by the wrath of the MOVID-19
pandemic resulting into thousands of people dying and many lost their source of livelihood.

4.the VERUM INSTITUTE in collaboration with the Boxword University, also started its research and
development towards developing a low-price vaccine for the State of Indiana.

9
5.In September, 2020, DIZER, a pharmaceutical company based in the Joint States of Camaria,
applied for the patent of its vaccine– MOVAXIN, which was already patented in the Joint States of
Camaria.

On 16.04.2021, the Union of Indiana made an amendment in Section 100 of the Patents Act, whereby
adding
sub-section 1A:
“1A- Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Central Government or any official
authorized in writing by it shall have the right to use or license the use of any such patent that has been
granted under this Act, subject to the payment of reasonable fee or profit
Provided that, the government may also share the know-how, if the patented product is to be used for
public welfare.
Provided further that, the patent may be used or licensed without the prior permission of the patentee,
after giving justification for the same.”

6.Thereafter on 25.04.2021, the Health Commissioner issued a letter to the management of DIZER,
informing them that the Government had decided to use and license MOVAXIN to the local vaccine
manufacturers in India, for the purpose of enhancing the vaccine production in India. The letter also
clarified that the license to manufacture MOVAXIN was granted to the VERUM INSTITUTE. It was
also stated that an amount of INR 450 shall be paid to DIZER for every vaccine manufactured by the
State or its agencies/ licensees.

7.That the,aggrieved by the letter dated 25.04.2021, DIZER preferred a representation dated
26.04.2021 before the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare against the use of patent held by it
without its permission and in less or no profit margin.

10
8.That the, DIZER saw a massive drop in its share price as its competitor got benefitted by the
amendment and directly acquired the entire know how for the vaccine and started selling in the open
market. DIZER in its representation stated that the methodology behind manufacturing the vaccine is
unique and exclusive and same cannot be made publicly available as it would affect its future market
and upcoming products.

9.That the,DIZER also suggested that rather than sharing its patent and know-how, government can
consider granting DIZER subsidy for increasing production and distribution of the vaccine in Pan-
India basis. Further, DIZER also suggested that if granted subsidy DIZER will keep the price of the
medicine at INR 450 subject to daily production of INR 1 Crore unit of vaccine, which is 10 times
more than government's ordinary scheme.

10.That on 27.04.2021, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, responded,whereby it was
categorically mentioned that the letter dated 24.04.2021 had been issued in compliance of the law in
force and that the representation of DIZER had no force in law whatsoever.

11.That the,aggrieved by the letter dated 27.04.2021, DIZER preferred a Writ Petition bearing no.
1120/2021, before the Hon'ble High Court of Delphi, challenging the amendment dated 16.04.2021
and the letter dated 25.04.2021.

12.That the, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, vide order dated 10.05.2021, partially dismissed the petition
filed by DIZER on the ground that the Union Government was justified in its act of using and
licensing the patent held by DIZER, however, the High Court directed the Union Government to
reconsider the royalty determined for
the use of the patent by the Government of Alliance.

13.That aggrieved by the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delphi, DIZER preferred a Special Leave
Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indiana.

11
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE I
WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HOLDS
SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO BE MAINTAINABLE?

ISSUE II
WHETHER THE AMENDMENT DATED 16.04.2021 IS VALID IN TERMS OF THE TRIPS
AGREEMENT OR NOT?

ISSUE III
WHETHER THE LETTER DATED 25.04.2021 WAS VIOLATIVE OF THE PROVISIONS OF
PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION of INDIANA?

12
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

[ISSUE I] WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER

HOLDS SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO BE MAINTAINABLE

It is humbly submitted that the special leave petition filed by the petitioner holds sufficient question
of law to be maintainable. It is also to be mentioned here that grave injustice has been done with the
petitioner as the crucial issue of ensuring and safeguarding the rights of the foreign research and
development companies has not been entertained by the respective lower court. The supreme court
can grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or matter
passed or made by any court or tribunal in territory of India. Thus, this special leave petition is liable
to be maintainable.

[ISSUE II] WHETHER THE AMENDMENT DATED 16.04.2021 IS VALID IN TERMS OF THE
TRIPS AGREEMENT OR NOT

It is humbly submitted that the State of Indiana is bounded by the TRIPS Agreement and is obliged
to follow the principle prescribed in it. Article 27 of the TRIPS agreement provides that patents shall
be available for all inventions, whether product or processes in all fields .It is also mentioned in the
arguments advanced that the amendment in Section 100 (1)(A) is arbitrary and provides over-arching
powers to the government and further is inconsistent with provisions of TRIPS Agreement. The said
amendment promotes unfair-commercial use of the know-how of patent in the name of government
use and purpose. Thus, the amendment is inconsistent with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement
proving it to be invalid.

[ISSUE III] WHETHER THE LETTER DATED 25.04.2021 WAS VIOLATIVE OF THE
PROVISIONS OF PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA
It is humbly submitted that the letter by the health commissioner, an executive action, was violative of
part III of the Constitution. The letter was in contrast of the state's aim of increasing the vaccine

13
production and making vaccine available at lowest prices possible in order to control the pandemic. The
letter prima facie shows an act of intentional discrimination by the government and hence is in violation
of article 14. The purpose behind letter is purely political in nature and not serving the purpose of public
welfare Further, the violation of the action to article 14 can be proven by applying the test of non-
arbitrariness. After analysing a host of cases and applying the essence of test of non-arbitrariness it is
contended that the action of the state i.e., the letter Is contrary to article 14 of the Constitution.

14
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

[ISSUE I] WHETHER THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER

HOLDS SUFFICIENT GROUNDS TO BE MAINTAINABLE
It is humbly submitted that the SLP against the judgment of Hon’ble HC is maintainable under Art.
136 of the Constitution of India. Art. 136 empowers the SC to grant in discretion Special leave to
Appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed
or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.1 It is humbly submitted that powers under
Art. 136 can be exercised against any kind of judgement or order which is causing injustice to any
party, and to serve the need, the power under Art. 136 is unfettered.2This SLP is maintainable as,

• the petitioner has locus standi to approach the Hon’ble SC,

• the matter involves question of general public importance involving a substantial question of
law.

1.THE PETITIONER HAS LOCUS STANDI TO APPROACH THE HON’BLE SC.

1. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble SC that the appellant has locus standi to approach
the Hon’ble SC in the present case. Art. 136 of the Constitution is couched in the widest
phraseology.3 This Court's jurisdiction is limited only by its discretion.4 It is pertinent to note
that the scope of Art. 133 providing appeals to the SC in civil matters is limited whereas Art.
136 is very broad-based & confers discretion on the court to hear “in any cause or matter”.5

1
India CONST. art 136.
2
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 520; Associated Cement Companies Ltd v. P.N.
Sharma (1965) 2 SCR 366; Jose Da Costa and Anr. v. Bascora Sadasiva Sinai Narcornim and Ors. (1976) 2 SCC 917;
Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham and Anr. (1979) (2) SCC 297; P.S.R. Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam and Anr. (1980)
3 SCC 141; Union Carbide Corporation and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1991) 4 SCC 584.
3
Nihal Singh & Ors v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 26.
4
Id.
5
Pritam Singh v. State, AIR 1950 SC 169.
15
 2. The plenitude of power under Art. 136 of the Constitution has been authoritatively stated by
the Constitution Bench in Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh and Ors.6 and
the exercise of the said power by the Court cannot be curtailed by the original constitutional
provision or by any statutory provision.7 Therefore, civil appeals may be brought to the SC
under Art. 136 when these are not covered by Art. 133.8

2. JURISDICTION OF SC UNDER ART. 136 CAN ALWAYS BE INVOKED WHEN A

QUESTION OF LAW OF GENERAL PUBLIC IMPORTANCE ARISES.

1. The jurisdiction conferred under Art. 136 on the SC are corrective one and not a restrictive one. 9 A
duty is enjoined upon the SC to exercise its power by setting right the illegality in the judgments is
well-settled that illegality must not be allowed to be perpetrated and failure by the SC to interfere
with the same would amount to allowing the illegality to be perpetuated. It has been held in plethora
of cases that when the question of law of general public importance arises, the jurisdiction of SC can
be invoked by filing special leave petition. In the present case, the issue involves matter of General
Public Importance
and substantial question of law
The Matter Involves Violation Of Principle Of Natural Justice Hence, Entitled to Be
Maintainable.

2. It has been held by this Hon’ble Court that when a question of law of general public importance
arises, or a decision shocks the conscience of the court, its jurisdiction can always be invoked. Art.
136 is the residuary power of SC to do justice where the court is satisfied that there is injustice.10The
principle is that this court would never do injustice nor allow injustice being perpetrated for the sake

6
AIR 1954 SC 520.
7
State of Karnataka v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 2007 decided on December 9, 2016.
8
Barsay v. Bombay, AIR 1961 SC 1762; Banwari Lal v. Trilok Chand, AIR 1980 SC 419; Digvijay Singh v. Pratap Kumari,
AIR 1970 SC 137; Chettiar v. Chettiar, AIR 1968 SC 915.
9
Haryana State Industrial Corporation. v. Cork Mfg. Co.,(2007) 8 SCC 359.
10
C.C.E v. Standard Motor Products, AIR1989 SC 1298; N Suriyakala v. A Mohan Doss & ors.,(2007) 9 SCC 196; Narpat
Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, AIR 2002 SC 2036.
16
 of upholding technicalities.11 In any case, special leave would be granted from a second appellant
decision only where the judgment raises issue of law of general public importance.12
3. In the case at hand, the Patent right of the company patented under The Patents Act is being violated
which will hamper the entire purpose and policy on which this Act was made. The logical behind
getting patent done being: encouragement of invention, the utility theory and to ensure further
development of products which are completely ignored on the pretext of general good. But the reality
is political agendas of Govt. being fulfilled. Further the principle of harmonious construction
requires all the provisions of a statute to be read together constructively and harmoniously which
has also been endangered by Govt. completely ignoring patentee’s rights.
The Matter Involves Substantial Question of Law and Hence Entitled to Be Maintainable.
4. Where findings are entered without considering relevant materials and without following proper
legal procedure, the interference of the SC is called for.13 The expression "substantial question of
law" is not defined in any legislation. Nevertheless, it has acquired a definite connotation through
various judicial pronouncements. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court, observed that:
“The proper test for determining whether a question of law raised in the case is substantial
would, in our opinion, be whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly
and substantially affects the rights of the parties.”14
5. The SC is not precluded from going into the question of facts under Art. 136, if it considers it
necessary to do so.15 Art. 136 uses the wording ‘in any cause or matter’. This gives widest power to
this court to deal with any cause or matter.16 It is, plain that when the SC reaches the conclusion that
a person has been dealt with arbitrarily or that a court or tribunal has not given a fair deal to a litigant,
then no technical hurdles of any kind like the finality of finding of facts, or otherwise can stand in
the way of the exercise of this power.17

11
Janshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai (2004) 3 SCC 214.
12
Balakrishna v. Rmaswami, AIR 1965 SC 195.
13
Dale & Carrington Investment Ltd. v. P.K. Prathapan, (2005) 1 SCC 212.
14
Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons Ltd. v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962 SC 1314.
15
Kathi Raning Rawat v. The State of Saurashtra, (1952) AIR 991 (All), see also Achyut Adhicary v. West Bengal ,(1963)
AIR1039 (SC)
16
Pritam Singh v. The State, (1950) AIR 169 (SC).
17
Sripur Paper Mills v. Commr. of Wealth Tax, (1970) AIR1520 (SC); see also Om Prakash Sood v. UOI, (2003) 7 SCC
473(SC).
17
6. In the present case, the question of law involved in appeal is that what will constitute a “reasonable”
situation to avail this provision, this question remains ambiguous and gives unlimited power to
government leaving it open to get misused further the meaning of emergency also remains
unexplained. And the other being that won’t giving manufacturing rights to local manufactures
hamper right to life of public at large and thus anything jeopardizing the interest of citizen has to be
prescribed. Further, the amendment fails due process of law as it has been passes hastily without
taking in view the resources and expertise local manufacturers will have in producing this novel
vaccine which is an ultimate savior for the crores of lives being lost.
The supreme court has made it clear that the object of keeping such a wide power with the supreme
court is to see that injustice is not perpetuated or perpetuated by decision of court below.18
Hence, considering all the above authorities, it is humbly submitted before this court that the matter
involves substantive question of law of general public importance and therefore, the appeal is
maintainable under Art. 136 of the constitution of India.

18
Monika Goel vs Rohini Goel, AIR 2010 SC 1099
18
 ISSUE-2: WHETHER THE AMENDMENT DATED 16. 04. 2021 IS VALID IN TERMS OF
THE TRIPS AGREEMENT OR NOT?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble SC that the amendment dated 16. 04. 2021 where the Govt.
of Indiana added sub-section 1A to section 100 of Patents Act is not in compliance with the TRIPS
agreement as:The objective and principle of the TRIPS is to protect the IPR’s Compulsory licensing is
not always the first resort .The amendment is not valid in terms of TRIPS agreement.

• THE OBJECTIVE AND PRINCIPLE OF THE TRIPS IS TO PROTECT THE IPR’S

7. It is contended that patents provide rights to patent owners to manufacture, sell, and import the
patented products. Without patents, the inventors and innovators can neither be adequately
compensated for their costs of research nor be encouraged or motivated for further research to
develop new and improved products. Patent protection is therefore accepted as a necessary evil
despite its conflict with the competition laws and human rights law. TRIPS Agreement is one of the
most comprehensive treaties on intellectual property rights- introduced a strict legal regime for the
protection of IPRs19.
8. Further, that Intellectual property protection is critical to fostering innovation. Also, IPRs protection
is particularly more important in the pharmaceutical industry in order to enable pharmaceutical
industry to recoup its investment and development cost and to provide incentive for further
innovation and research. TRIPS Agreement provided protection to patents in all fields of technology,
including pharmaceuticals for a period of twenty-years20.
9. It must be noted that a primary justification for the intellectual property system is the incentive it
provides for advancement in many fields. The introduction of the TRIPS Agreement extends that
stimulus beyond national boundaries. The claim that intellectual property protection can promote
innovation is premised upon the notion that protectable subject matter is a public good. The new
development or creation can often be reproduced with little cost or effort on the part of others, thus
removing or severely limiting the market for the original product or process21.

19
Muhammad Zaheer Abbas, Pros and Cons of Compulsory Licensing: An Analysis of Arguments, International Journal
Of Social Sciences and Humanity, Vol. 3, No.3, May, 03, 2013.
20
S. Bartelt, “Compulsory licences pursuant to trips article 31 in the light of the Doha declaration on the trips agreement and
public health,”Journal of World Intellectual Property, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 283, 2003.
21
Id. at 962.
19
10. Also, by receiving a set of exclusive rights for a set period of time, rights holders are able to exclude
others from commercially exploiting the protected subject matter. This enhances the opportunity to
recoup the expenditure incurred in developing the product or service and increases the prospect of
additional financial rewards by securing the market for the rights holder. Accordingly, in light of
intellectual property protection, an individual or corporation can create and exploit the manifestation
of their efforts secure in the knowledge that a competitor cannot free-ride at their expense. It does
reflect the view that intellectual property protection aims to serve the broader interests of society
through the encouragement of innovation and creation, and the transfer of that knowledge to others22.
11. It is submitted that another primary justification for intellectual property protection is the value it
holds for the dissemination of knowledge and the transfer of technology both nationally and
internationally. The utility of the intellectual property system rests not merely in protecting the
interests of the rights holder, but in doing so for the wider public interest. The protection of
intellectual property is often premised upon social contract theories: Society grants the inventor or
creator a selection of exclusive rights and in return, the inventor or creator grants full disclosure-the
“intellectual property bargain.23”
[2.2] COMPULSORY LICENSING IS NOT ALWAYS THE FIRST RESORT
12. It is submitted that compulsory license is an action of a Govt. forcing an exclusive holder of a right
to grant the use of that right to other upon the terms decided by the Govt24. The Govt., however, pays
a royalty to the patent holder in order to compensate them for the use of their patent without their
consent. Compulsory license therefore is interference in the exclusive rights of the patentee for the
invention. Incentive to innovate and create new works may be diminished as a result. Therefore,
incentive is must for invention because commercialization of new ideas involves money and effort.
But the amount of royalty set by the state for granting compulsory license is so less and unreasonable
that it cannot be considered as an incentive, as it is nowhere near the minimum potential financial
benefit which the patent owner should get.
13. That compulsory licensing is therefore opposed by many because the licensee reaps the benefits of
other’s research without contributing their fair share to the costs incurred on research and

22
Supra note 10 at 44.
23
Matthew Fisher, “Classical Economics and Philosophy of the Patent System” (2005), IPQ 1 at 20-24.
24
T. Jain, “Compulsory licenses under trips and its obligation for member countries,” ICFAI Journal of Intellectual
Property Rights, vol. 8, no. 1, Feb 2009.
20
 development25. Critics of compulsory licensing further states that over 90 percent of the drugs
included in the Essential Drugs List published by the World Health Organization are not protected
by patents. Moreover, compulsory licenses may raise safety concerns26; the consumers of counterfeit
products are at risk because the inferior quality unapproved generics may contain many dangerous
impurities.
14. Furthermore, there are many diseases which are unique to the third world countries. If patent
protection is ensured in these countries, it would provide an incentive to multinationals to invest in
the research to investigate these diseases which would otherwise remain incurable; multinational
pharmaceutical companies carry out investment on research and development after considering the
potential financial gain. Uncertainty about patent protection may halt search for new drugs much
needed by third world countries. Absence of business friendly legal climate may discourage patent
owning firms to start any new ventures in a country that makes use of compulsory licensing
provisions27.
15. In addition to this, use of compulsory license may cause trade friction with the countries which
produce patented drugs28. Moreover, the growth of local industry in developing countries is heavily
dependent on investment that comes from outside the country29. The decision of a Govt. to grant
compulsory licenses may lead to the loss of foreign direct investment. Therefore, a country may lose
a potential source of economic growth by issuance of compulsory licenses30.

25
G. J. Arnold, “International compulsory licensing: the rationales and the reality”, PTC Research Foundation of the
Franklin Pierce Law Center, IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology, 1993.
26
Lamb, “Compulsory licensing: A necessary evil?”, Pharmacy Times, p. 57, 2007.
27
R. C. Bird, “Developing nations and the compulsory license: maximizing access to essential medicines while
minimizing investment side effects,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, vol. 37, no. 2, p. 210, 2009.
28
R. Holbrooke and A. F. Holmer, Applying U.S. Antitrust’s “rule of reason” to trip’s compulsory licensing provision,
New England Law Review,[Online]. 36(3). p. 697.
29
F. M. Abbott, Compulsory Licensing for Public Health: A Guide and Model Documents for Implementation of the Doha
Declaration Paragraph 6 Decision, Quaker United Nations Office, Geneva, 2002, p. 160.
30
R. Bird and D. R. Cahoy, “The Impact of compulsory licensing on foreign direct investment: a collective bargaining
approach”, American Business Law Journal, vol. 45, no. 2, 2008, p. 284.
21
 [2.3] THE AMENDMENT IS NOT VALID IN TERMS OF THE TRIPS

AGREEMENT

16. It is submitted that the Government of Indiana decided to expand its vaccination
programme, however, the only impediment before the government was the availability of
adequate number of vaccines. The number of Movishield vaccines supplied by the Verum
institute were limited and the government was facing backlash from the public at
large31.Several Public Interest Litigation Petition, whereby the questions pertaining to the
slow rate of vaccination and the measures to control MOVID-19 were raised32.
17. It is contented that in one such PIL , Johan v. Union of Indiana and Ors., the Hon'ble SC
vide its order dated 11.04.2021, directed the Health Commissioner of the Union of Indiana
to take immediate measures to enhance the availability of the vaccines in Indiana33.
18. Further, it is submitted that as the Govt. was facing backlash and dissent from public due
to collapsing medical infrastructure and Govt’s failure to take any measures. Also the Govt.
was unable to produce adequate number of vaccine due to which people were losing lives,
and later it directly issued compulsory licensing by immediately amending the Patents act.
So the chain of instances shows that to hide its failure and inefficiency to properly handle
the situation and just to simply project to the people that it’s in action mode, the Govt. of
Indiana passed the present amendment.
19. By adding this sub-section the Govt. have tried to do away with all the reasonable
procedures which one is obliged to follow under Sec. 92(2) of the Patents Act for issuing
compulsory licensing. The procedures were established so as to check the wrongful and
unnecessary usage of the provision of compulsory licensing thereby violating IPR’s, which
are protected under the TRIPS Agreement. Compulsory licensing as a provision is to used
only in cases of national emergency and extreme urgency. It cannot be used as a general
provision because of its conflict with IPR’s.
20. It is submitted that in the instant case the amendment brought by the Govt. has no rational,
as it is arbitrary in its nature. The sub-section added excludes the reasonable restriction and
grants absolute usage of the provision of compulsory licensing. Also, though the provision
talks about giving adequate amount of remuneration and justification for the action, none
of them have been given and adhered by the Govt. of Indiana. Therefore the act of Govt.

31
FACTSHEET, PARA NO. 17.
32
FACTSHEET, PARA NO. 18.
33
FACTSHEET, PARA NO. 19.

22
 stands violative of the Patents Act as well as the TRIPS Agreement.
21. The Hon’ble HC of Delhi directed the Union Govt. to reconsider the royalty determined
for the use of the patent by the Govt.34. As the amount decided by them is even less than
50% of its actual price. The company had agreed to provide them the vaccine, even ten
times more than their total production at the same price while asking just for subsidies. But
the Govt. did not pay any head to the offer and continued with their order. It shows that
they are not ready for any dialogues and conversation, and just want to impose their will.
22. Further, another point to be noted is that the compulsory licensing is to be granted only for
public welfare according to the TRIPS Agreement35. But with the amendment in the present
case the Govt. have even made that necessary ingredient null and void. It implies that the
actions of the Govt. was not in consonance with the law, rather the law (amendment) was
made to justify the actions of the Govt. Further the hastily manner through which the
amendment have been passed shows that the Govt. have misused its majoritarianism and
passed the amendment without going through deliberate debates and discussion on the bill.
23. The TRIPS Agreement talks about sharing the know how to local manufacturer in cases of
compulsory licensing but in the present case the Govt. gave the license exclusively to the
Verum institute thereby raising substantial doubt about satisfying its controversial political
relations with the Alliance Group. Primarily the actions of the Govt. are very vague and
doubtful and later prove to be unreasonable. Therefore the grant of compulsory licensing
in the instant case must be judicially reviewed in adherence of public welfare, IPR’s and
the TRIPS.
24. Lastly, owing to the above stated contentions, the counsel for the petitioner humbly states
before this Hon’ble SC of Indiana that the action of the Govt. is irrational and against public
welfare. Hence, the amendment dated 16.04.2021 is not valid in terms of the TRIPS
Agreement, hence should be held invalid.

34
FACTSHEET, PARA NO 27.
35
Obligations and exceptions, WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION.

23
 ISSUE- 3 WHETHER THE LETTER DATED 25.04.2021 IS VIOLATIVE OF THE
PROVISIONS OF PART III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIANA?

It is most humbly submitted that the letter dated 25.04.2020 to the petitioners by the defendant,
is violative of Part III of the Constitution and interpreted in a very narrower sense. The counsel
prays to the most learned lordships to interpret the Part III of Constitution in a wider sense,
with respect to the dated, for the benefit of the public at large, keeping in mind the bona-fides
intentions of the Pharmaceutical Company, and the current situation of the State of Indiana.
The counsel submits that the letter is unconstitutional, to corroborate this assertion, the counsel
will be presenting a two-fold argument, (3.1) The letter does not align with Art. 14, and (3.2)
That the purpose of Art. 21 is not being served by the letter.

[3.1] THE LETTER DATED 25.04.2021 IS VIOLATIVE OF ART. 14

25. It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court that equality before the law and equal
protection of the law has been granted u/a 14 of the Constitution. This fundamental right
impliedly casts a duty upon the state to be fair while taking actions regarding public welfare.
In cases of exercise of arbitrary powers on behalf of the state authorities, the judiciary has
played a strict role in disallowing the arbitrary sanction. The differentiation should be based
on ‘intelligible differentia’ and such differentiation should have a reasonable nexus with
the object sought to be achieved by the state action.
26. The amendment and the letter, is not in consonance with this right, as it is an obligation on
the Govt. of Indiana to ensure that every citizen has access to the vaccination programme,
with an authentic and certified vaccine, with due care and procedure. This fundamental
right impliedly casts a duty upon the State to be fair while taking actions regarding any rule
being imposed and thus, infringe Art. 14.
27. The doctrine of equality before the law is a necessary corollary of rule of law that pervades
the Constitution. The right to equality has been declared by the SC as the basic feature of
the constitution. The underlying objective of Art. 14 is to secure to all persons, citizens or
non-citizens, the equality of status and opportunity referred to in the Preamble to the
Constitution. Thus, contradicts the Govt. actions to ensure equality to all Pharma
companies, irrespective of their status thus prioritizing public health over the profit of any
particular company as it is evident that a company who invented a drug or any vaccines is
much more efficient and effective to program it than anyone else.

24
28. Art. 14 has gone through a significant shift towards the classical test. It is evident that the
differentiation is not at all based on intelligible grounds but purely political, to favour the
Alliance group. Also, there is no such reasonable nexus between the expansion of the
vaccination programme and to use the licensing of another company, when there is already
a company which is having 50% shares with the Govt. and therefore the amendment
brought by them was not the need of the hour to deal with but to expand the vaccination
programme irrespective of any other political agenda so that the country can overcome
from the ongoing crisis.
29. Along with that, there has been a significant shift towards the doctrine of reasonableness36
equating arbitrariness or unreasonableness as the yardstick by which administrative, as well
as legislative actions, are to be judged37 the SC has observed in the case of Kalra38. It is
submitted that the letter to the management of DIZER, that the Govt. had decided to use
and license MOVAXIN to the local vaccine manufacturers in India, without actually
knowing the technology, procedure, and all over know-how, whether they are capable to
maintain that quality, quantity and taking risk of crores of the population of the country, by
manufacturing it at their own, is arbitrary and not at all reasonable.
30. It is submitted by the counsel on the behalf of the petitioner, that the methodology behind
manufacturing their vaccine is unique and exclusive and same cannot be made publicly
available, also agrees to keep the price of the medicine at INR 450, which is equivalent to
the price of local manufacturers of vaccine i.e. Movishield, subjected to the daily
production of INR 1 Crore unit of vaccine, which is 10 times more than the Govt.'s ordinary
scheme, if the Govt. granted a subsidy to the petitioner, i.e., DIZER.
31. Further, it is submitted that the action of the Govt. is unreasonable and arbitrary, just to
promote the political hegemony with corrupt intention and not for the welfare of the society
as it questions the Govt. that why don't they share the know-how of their own company or
why don't they increase the production of their vaccine, so that there is no such need of
taking up of license of a foreign company which came to our country, whom we granted
patent at the difficult time and now misusing the same.
32. Also, it is contended that if the Govt. truly wants to expand its vaccination programme and
the letter is issued just to suffice the same purpose, why don't they align with the petitioner

36
E P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1947 SC 555: (1974), 3 SSC 3.
37
Union of India v. International Trading Corporation, AIR 2003 SC 3983; Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration,
(1978), 4 SCC 494.
38
AL Kalra v. P&E Corporation of India, Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1361, 1367.

25
 that rather than sharing their patent and know-how, the Govt. consider granting DIZER
subsidy for increasing production and instead of investing there for whole new technical
set up, with no guarantee of maintaining the efficiency and quality, this is the most suited
solution, even a win-win situation for the Govt. to take care of the public interest along
with the principle of equality and can provide subsidy for it, and can make possible for
DIZER for distribution of the vaccine in Pan-India basis.
33. Further, DIZER also suggested that if Govt. grant them subsidy, DIZER will keep the price
of the medicine at INR 450, which is equivalent to the price of the local manufacturing
company i.e., Verum Institute, subject to that, the daily production of INR 1 Crore unit of
vaccine, which is 10 times more than the Govt.'s ordinary scheme, which will be even more
efficient as well as time and cost-effective solution for the prevailing situation in the
country.
34. The letter further is violative of Art. 14 as firstly the amendments made by the Govt. in the
law are totally arbitrary in nature and in contradiction with the other provisions of the Patent
Act of India, Sec-48, results the amended dated 16.04.2021 is against the principle of
construction ex visceribus actus, which means that every part of a statute should be
construed with reference to context and also the principle of Harmonious Construction,
which refers to such construction by which harmony or oneness amongst various provisions
of an enactment is arrived at, makes the statue dichotomy in itself in terms of its provisions.
The whole ideology behind the Act will be demeaning by this particular Amendment and
the letter.
35. It is submitted that the letter is unconstitutional as it is based on the amendment which is
arbitrary in nature as it is nowhere mentioned that at what situation Govt. can use this
power, and to which extent it can be taken, also the phrase national emergency or other
circumstances of extreme urgency is very vague and ambiguous in itself. Moreover, sub-
section 1A of Sec.100 is not an exception to Sec. 48 of the Patent Act of India, it gives a
very wide power to the Govt., which is arbitrary in nature, and dilutes the whole essence of
the Patents Act.
36. The differentiation which can be provided in this Art. is only under the concept of ‘equal
protection of laws’, a positive concept. It does not mean that identically the same law
should apply to all persons. distinction. Rather, it postulates the application of the same
laws alike and without discrimination to all persons similarly situated. It denotes equality

26
 of treatment in equal circumstances.39 It implies that among equals the law should be equal
and equally administered, that the like should be treated alike without distinction of race,
religion, wealth, social status or political influence. 40
37. Art. 14 guarantees a right of hearing to the person adversely affected by an administrative
order. As the SC has observed in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation & Kishore
41
Samrite
“The audi alteram partem rule, in essence, enforces the equality clause in Art. 14 and
it is applicable not only to quasi-judicial bodies but also to administrative orders
adversely affecting the party in question unless the rule has been excluded by the Act
in question." 42
38. In the present scenario, the aggrieved by the letter dated 25.04.2021, by the Health
Commissioner, the DIZER preferred a representation dated 26.04.2021 before the Ministry
of Health and Family Welfare against the use of patent held by it without its permission
and in less or no profit margin, where the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
responded,“ the letter dated 24.04.2021 had been issued in compliance with the law in force
and that the representation of DIZER had no force in law whatsoever”, is completely
violating the right of the petitioner to be heard.
39. It is submitted that the royalty which is provided by the Govt. against the licensing is very
nominal, even Govt. has to invest for the cost of production for MOVAXIN, which is
actually way more costly than providing subsidy. Also the Hon’ble HC of Delphi directed
the Union Govt. to reconsider the royalty determined for the use of the patent by the Govt.
for the purpose of manufacturing by local manufacturers that is Verum Institute.
40. With this overly encompassing reasonable grounds, while keeping the welfare of the public
at large in mind, along with the constant positive attempts by the Foreign Pharmaceuticals
Company for the public welfare of the society in mind, the counsel on petitioner concludes
there is infringement of Art. 14, by the actions taken up by the States which are a reflection

39
M P Jain, Right to Equality, 908, (8th ed. 2018).
40
Jagannath Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 1245: ,(1962) 1 SCR 151; Mohd Shaheb Mahboob v.
Deputy Custodian, AIR 1961 SC 1657: , (1962), 2 SCR 371.
41
Delhi Transport Corporation v. DTC Mazdoor Union, AIR 1999, SC 564. See also Kishore Samrite v. State of
UP, 2013 (1) All LJ 230 (239) (SC); Sahara India Real State Corporation Limited v. SEBI, (2013), 1 SCC 1
(137).
42
UOI v. Amrik Singh, AIR 1991 SC 564: ,(1991), 1 SCC 654; DK Yadav v. JMA Industries, (1993) 3 SCC
259.

27
 of the political relations with malafide intention to profit the competitor of the petitioner,
and thus the letter dated 24.04.2021 is purely political and biased in nature.

[3.2]THAT THE DATED LETTER 25.04.2021 IS VIOLATIVE OF ART. 21.

41. Art. 21 of the Constitution envisages the right to life and personal liberty of a person. The
word “Life” under Art. 21 means a quality of life43, which includes the right to food, and
reasonable accommodation to live in44 and the right to a wholesome environment.45 Also
ICCPR46, UDHR47 and ICESCR48 recognizes the right to life, right to health49 and an
adequate standard of living.50
42. Further, to establish a violation of Art. 21, the act should be subjected to the equality test
of Art. 14 and the test of reasonableness under Art. 19.51 Art. 14 strikes at arbitrariness
because it negates equality52 and permeates the entire fabric of Rule of Law53. Therefore,
every action of the State must be guided by reason for the public good and not by whim,
caprice, and abuse of power.54 Art. 19 provides that a restriction can be characterized to be
reasonable if it strikes a balance between the fundamental right and restriction imposed
thereon.55
43. It is submitted before the Hon'ble court that, on the question of applicability of Art. 21 to
non-citizens, the SC has emphasized that even those who come to India as tourists also
“have the right to live, so long as they are here, with human dignity, just as the State is
under an obligation to protect the life of every citizen In this country, so also the State is
under an obligation to protect the life of the persons who are not citizens.”56
44. It is submitted that Art- 21 pays a special emphasis on "due process of law", where the
word ‘due’ is interpreted to mean ‘just’, ‘proper or reasonable.. The court may declare a

43
Francis Coralie v. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1994 SC 1844.
44
Shantisar Builders v. Narayanan Khimalal Totamen, AIR 1990 SC 630.
45
Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1480.
46
Article 6, ICCPR.
47
Article 3, UDHR.
48
Article 11, ICESCR.
49
Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity & Ors. v. State of West Bengal, (1996) 4 SCC 37.
50
Aart Hendriks, The Right to Health in National and International Jurisprudence, European Journal of Health
Law 5 (1998).
51
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. AIR 1978 SC 597.
52
Suresh Chandra Sharma v. Chairman, AIR 2005 SC 2021.
53
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1982 SC 1325.
54
Haryana Development Authority v. Dropadi Devi, (2005), 9 SCC 514; Dolly Chandra v. Chairman Jee, (2005)
9 SCC 779.
55
Om Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 3689.
56
Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das, AIR 2000 SC 988 at 998: (2000), 2 SCC 465.

28
 law invalid if it does not accord with its notions, with two-fold aspects- Substantive, and
other is Procedural, comprises of four major elements- notice, opportunity to be heard, an
impartial tribunal and an orderly procedure.
45. t is submitted that the due procedure of law through which the amendment dated
16.04.2021, added 1A in sec- 100 of Parents Act of Indiana is not at all fair and reasonable
even arbitrary, and give arbitrary power to the Govt. to use licensing without providing any
safeguard to the patentee (company), not even leaving a room of discussion with the
patentee to discuss the same, which infringes their right to be heard.
46. It is further submitted that the amendment was passed in a haphazard manner and that Govt.
is doing nothing, just making the general public believe that they are in action, whereas the
actions are not matching with the circumstances, results to the letter being unconstitutional,
based on an amendment which is arbitrary and unreasonable, and also, in this case, there is
no justification provided to the Company for the compulsory licensing of the vaccine. The
amount of royalty that is to be paid by the Govt. is exceptionally low, which is even
supported by the Hon’ble HC of Delphi.
47. Furthermore, it is submitted by the counsel of the petitioner that the SC in its landmark
1978 judgment, held that any state action interfering with life or liberty must be ‘right, just
and fair’ in addition to procedurally authorized.57Further, in Olga Tellis v. Bombay
Municipal Corporation58 the court held that the right to life ‘is wide and far-reaching’ and
includes the right to a livelihood.
48. The court's view with the definition of the word "life" in Art.- 21 in a broad, the Court came
to hold that the right to life guaranteed by Art. 21 includes the right to livelihood."59The
SC has implied the right to livelihood out of the right to life in Art. 21. The Court has argued
in Olga Tellis60 that the right to livelihood is born out of the right to life, as no person can
live without the means of living, that is, the means of livelihood.
49. It is submitted by the counsel that the letter was infringing the company’s Right to
Livelihood under Art.- 21 , as the company invented that particular vaccine and has the
right to produce it. Because of this step of the Govt., the right of the company which
ultimately hampers the sale of the vaccine, results in infringement of the right to livelihood
of the Company. And eventually, it will hamper the interest of the general public i.e.,

57
Maneka Gandhi v Union of India, 1978 AIR 597.
58
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., 1985 SCC (3) 545.
59
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v Dilipkumar R Nandkarni, AIR 1983 SC 109: (1983) SCC 124.
60
Supra 84.

29
 employees of the company, as the profit margin suffers, it will reflect increase in rate of
unemployment.
50. It is submitted that it is the duty of the State that the minimum requirements that must exist
to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State has the right to take any action
which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essentials.61The right to health
or healthcare under the Constitution, the SC of India in Bandhua Mukti Morcha v Union
of India & Ors 62interpreted the right to health under Art. 21 which guarantees the right to
life.63
51. It is submitted that the letter dated 25.04.2021 was violative of the Right of Medical
Healthcare of the general public, giving license to a company which is not even invented
that vaccine and also, not at all familiar with the know-how and the technology used for
that particular vaccine, leads to involvement of huge amount of risks to the life of Crores
of people, as there is no conformity or guarantee that it will able to come up with the same
quality, also to maintain the efficiency of that vaccine and can make optimum utilisation of
the same.
52. It is submitted that the contentions of petitioners are supported by the Utilitarian Theory
and Ethic & Reward Theory of Intellectual Property. Consequently, in order to promote
the inventions and creations, the titular needs a guarantee that the outcome will be superior
to the costs of his work. As a matter of fact, intellectual rights represent an artificial
encouragement from the State for the production. In short, the incentive theory justifies
intellectual rights because of the profit they bring for the whole society. And the Ethic and
Reward theory justifies the exclusive rights of intellectual property with some moral and
ethical aspects. Indeed, the ethic requires a fair and proportional contribution for the effort
that the creator has made for the social utility. The exclusive rights are “an expression of
gratitude to an author for doing more than society expects or feels that they are obliged to
do.64
53. Lastly, the counsel on behalf of the petitioner concludes that the Govt. of Indiana has made
a political move and not able to fulfil the promise under Art 21 , dismantling the order given
the Hon'ble HC of Delphi, directed the Union Govt. to directed to reconsider the royalty

61
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 161.
62
Id.
63
Right to Health as a Fundamental Right Guaranteed by the Constitution of India, JSA, (Mar.22,2020).
64 Intellectual property theories: are they fairy justified?, Law Right, (Oct.19,2016).

30
 determined for the use of the patent by the Govt.. A wide interpretation must be done of
the Fundamental Right of the Constitution of Indiana with respect to patents rights provided
under Patent Act, 1970 and must be done of the letter dated 25.2021 and the amendment
dated 16.04.2021 on Sec 100 of Parents Act.
54. The programme on which Govt. of Indiana is taking steps towards it, is not at all certain
but violative of Art 21 and compulsory licensing is not a solution to enhance the availability
of the vaccines, it is just a political move to show the public that the Govt. is in action
which will impact the future of the country with disastrous effect as there is a high
probability of increasing the number of deaths and casualties in the State of Indiana, if
further delays in vaccination will be happened.
Therefore, the counsel pleads that there has been a violation of Art. 14 , and 21
by the letter dated 25.04.202 of the petitioner’s right. Further the actions of the Govt.
were political, arbitrary and unreasonable in nature, which eventually promoting
inequality, and not in consonance with Right to health, Right to livelihood and Right
to be heard, under Art. 21.

31
 PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the issues raised hereinabove, arguments advanced and authorities
relied upon, the counsel for the Respondent humbly prays before this Hon’ble SC of Indiana
to kindly adjudge and be pleased to declare and/or issue:

1. That the Special Leave Petition may kindly be accepted with cost and order of
the Hon’ble HC be struck down as invalid.

2. That the Amendment dated on 16.04.2021be held as invalid in terms of TRIPS

Agreement;
3. That the letter dated 25.04,2021 is violative of the provisions of Part III of the
Constitution of Indiana.

4. Any other order/directions/writ that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the
interest of equity, justice, environment and good conscience.

For this act of kindness, the Petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever humbly pray.

DRAWN ON:

FILED ON:

Sd/-

Counsel for the Petitioner.

32