Delhi HC Rules that Single Judges Can Adjudicate Writs Against IPAB Orders Pre-Abolition

LI Network

Published on: October 18, 2023 at 10:47 IST

The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice C Hari Shankar, has made a clear determination that writ petitions challenging orders issued by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) before its abolition in 2021 can be heard and decided by a Single Judge of the High Court.

In doing so, the Court emphasized the unequivocal statutory provisions and rejected any interpretative maneuvers, asserting that it is bound by the statutory framework and cannot create laws.

Counsel N Mahabir, among others, represented the petitioner, while CGSC Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, among others, appeared for the State in this matter.

The central issue in this case revolved around whether writ petitions challenging IPAB’s orders should be assigned to a Single Judge or a Division Bench of the Court following the IPAB’s abolition.

The Court provided the following observations while dismissing objections against hearing these writ petitions before a Single Judge:

1. Rule 4 of the IPD Rules explicitly mandates that every “IPR subject matter or case or proceeding or dispute” should be adjudicated by a Single Judge.
2. The IPAB’s decisions fall under the purview of “IPR Subject Matter” as defined in Rule 2(i) of the IPD Rules.
3. Writ petitions challenging IPAB decisions are considered “original proceedings, appellate, or other proceedings related to IPR subject matter” and thus fall within the definition of “IPR subject matter or case or proceeding or dispute” as per Rule 2(l) of the IPD Rules.
4. Rule 4, in conjunction with Rule 2(i) and 2(l) of the IPD Rules, obliges Single Judges to handle writ petitions challenging IPAB orders, effectively settling the dispute.
5. Even if clause (iii) were to apply, it reinforces the position that such writ petitions should be heard by Single Judges.
6. The absence of provisions in the IPD Rules requiring these writ petitions to be dealt with by Division Benches solidifies the position.
7. Even if the exception in Rule 2(l)(iii) and Rule 8(iii) regarding DHC rules is taken into account, these writ petitions should still be heard by Single Judges under Rule 1(xviii)(a) in Part B of Chapter 3 of the DHC Rules.
8. Therefore, Rule 4 of Chapter 3 of the DHC Rules does not apply to these cases.

The Court made it clear that any reluctance or refusal by a Single Judge to hear these petitions, apart from recusal, would constitute an abdication of the judicial function entrusted to them. The Court emphasized that looking at the history of the IPD Rules or the statute’s evolution, or the IPAB’s creation and abolition, as reasons to avoid exercising the jurisdiction vested in a Single Judge, would be unjustified.

This decision comes in the case of Ayur United Care LLP vs. Union of India & Anr., and it reaffirms the role of Single Judges in addressing writ petitions concerning IPAB orders issued before its abolition.