The 40th Year of Keshavnand Bharti Judgement

Since the inception of our constitution there have been doubts, vagueness about various provisions which are embodied in our constitution and supreme court has played a very significant role in interpreting these vague provisions and filling the void. And one of the most controversial provision was amendment of the constitution. The Amendment of the constitution has been there in Article 368 and basic purpose of this provision is to infuse flexibility of our constitution but bounds of this provision was not marked, However parliament was entitled to amend the constitution and also the procedure was also there in Art 368 but how much power is conferred in the parliament to amend the constitution was still under the shadow.

One of the important features are the fundamental rights, But they are part of the constitution. In Art 13 it is clearly mentioned that any law which abridges the fundamental right is void, But what about the constitutional amendment, The biggest question before the court for a long time was Can the fundamental rights can be amended and can be attenuated as per the wish and whims of the parliament? There have been different case laws to interpret this dilemma but none was concrete and in no time the decision of the Supreme Court got overruled by another.

Starting from very first amendment which was challenged by “shankari Lal V UOI  “ It was contended in this case that the “Law” defined in Art 13(2) is the same law which is to be amended by art 368 and if this “Law” abridges the fundamental rights it is void. The supreme court made it clear that the word “law” in art 13(2) is the ordinary law, But the “la w” which is to be amended by art 368 is constituent law and is outside the scope of Art 13(2), This meant if any provisions which may be inserted in the constitution is in violation of any of the fundamental rights is not void. This also meant that the parliament has an Inherent power to amend the fundamental rights and can even remove the fundamental rights.

But 20 years later the supreme court overruled the Shankari Prasad judgement in “Golak Nath V State of Punjab” The Parliament has no power to abridge or amend the fundamental rights  as fundamental rights are transcendental position under our constitution, and clear it’s stance that an Amendment is a law within the meaning of Art 13(2), The supreme court took a u turn on it’s earlier path and thus made two stance extremely opposite to each other.

Due to which the parliament in it’s 24^th amendment   parliament has inserted a provision in Art 368 “Nothing in Article 13 shall apply to any amendment made under this article” and hence overruled the Golak Nath judgement. Which was challenged by the Keshavnand Bharti case In this case the supreme court upheld the validity of 24^th Amendment which again raised the serious question again up to what extent the whole constitution can be Amended ?Can the parliament take away the fundamental rights by amending it? The court was in opinion of taking a middle path.

1. While affirming the Parliament can amend any of the provisions of the constitution as per the procedure in article 368.

2. However the power to amend is limited keeping in mind the Basic features of the constitution.

3. The basic feature includes secularism, socialism, equality, Federal character and separation of power.

4. The basic feature also includes fundamental rights and directive principles.

The court further held that the provision inserted in 24^th amendment is valid as it made what was implied in art 368 as express and does not abrogate any fundamental rights.

Making the decision more flexible the Supreme Court clearly mentioned that the fundamental rights can be abridged reasonably but cannot be abrogated. In order to preserve the basic features of the constitution the judgement was a Savior of our constitution. It preserved both rigidity and the flexibility, by inserting the bounds of “basic structure”. The “Basic Structure” hence forms a safety valve against the abrogation of the fundamental rights.

However some of the dissenting judges criticized the Doctrine of Basic Structure, They describe it vague as there was no subject matter that clearly specifies what “Basic structure” is and what is not?

However the landmark judgement of Keshavnand Bharti has kept the spirit of the constitution alive and prevented the misuse by the parliament against wipe off the constitution and thereby protecting the fundamental rights of the citizens.

By-: Nitish Banka

5 Things To Do Before You Even Think About Getting A Divorce

There are many steps to take to protect yourself in a divorce. This article will get you started. Your best bet is to talk to a lawyer before you do anything. 1. Talk to a Marriage Counselor or other professional who may be able to help you save your marriage. Even if you don't think there's hope for the marriage, "divorce counseling" can help you discover what went wrong, how to cope, and how to pick up the pieces and go on. Don't wait for your spouse to participate. If you don't know how to find a qualified counselor, our firm will be glad to recommend one or you can check out the directory of professionals at stayhappilymarried.com. Your employment, social or religious contacts might also provide leads. 2. Talk to an attorney before you do anything. Even if you don't end up hiring an attorney to handle your separation or divorce, you would be well advised to get as much information as you can before you even discuss divorce with your spouse. There's a lot to know about divorce in North Carolina?our laws are complex and even the simplest situation can be very confusing to families already in distress. Actions you take now may very well affect the outcome of your divorce (see #3) and you need to understand your options ahead of time?not some time down the road when it may be too late to alter the outcome. Click here to find attorneys who are well versed in the intricacies of North Carolina divorce law. 3. Do not move out of the marital home without talking to an attorney first. Leaving the house without a good reason may cause you to pay alimony or may result in your inability to collect alimony. If you leave the house, you may also be unable to return until after a court divides the property. This process might take more than a year. The best advice is to stay in the house until after you talk with an attorney unless your spouse is violent. If your spouse is violent, you must take all steps necessary to protect yourself and your children. 4. If you have been involved in any extramarital affairs, talk to a lawyer before you discuss this with your spouse or anyone else. In this case, honesty may not be the best policy. In addition to the fact that adultery is illegal in some states, admission of an affair can have other dire consequences. If your spouse is a candidate for alimony, any illicit sexual behavior on your part (during the marriage?which includes the time you are separated) could end up costing you thousands in additional alimony payments. 5. Take concrete steps to safeguard your assets before you and your spouse begin discussing divorce. One of these steps is to take possession of certain assets during separation, especially those assets you wish to be using, such as furniture and vehicles, and those assets that might be liquidated by your spouse, including precious gems and stones, other collectibles, cash, and bearer bonds. Another self-protective step is to file what is known as a Lis Pendens in the Deeds Office of any county where you and/or your spouse own real property. The lis pendens puts third parties on notice of your claim to have an interest in the real estate against which the lis pendens is docketed. The lis pendens is basically a notice of pending litigation that may affect real property. A properly recorded and served lis pendens clouds the title to the property, preventing an effective sale of the property behind your back. The rules regarding a lis pendens contain very specific requirements, all of which are spelled out in section 1-116 and the following sections of the North Carolina General Statutes. A third possible step to protect the assets of your marriage is to get an injunction restraining your spouse from transferring or otherwise disposing of any property covered by the restraining order. Your attorney can also use an injunction to get your separate property returned to you, where your separate property is in the possession of your spouse and the spouse refuses to give it to you. The equitable distribution statute also provides a means for you to obtain an interim distribution of marital property, pending a final resolution of the property matter. Such an interim allocation could, for instance, give you much needed funds on which to live. Other protective measures you might consider in your divorce planning include: (1) protecting your own credit rating by freezing or closing joint cards and by blocking your spouse's access to other joint credit such as a home equity loan; (2) closing joint bank accounts and opening accounts in your own, individual name; (3) changing the name of the responsible party on utility and other bills; and (4) spending where possible your spouse's separate property first, marital property next, and your own separate property last. While this list will help you get started on the right track, it is by no means a complete list of all the things you need to do and know if you are considering a divorce. For more information about the rights and duties of separating and divorcing husbands and wives visit http://www.rosen.com. You'll find a complete law library, downloadable divorce forms, a legal fee calculator, a child support calculator, lists of professionals who can help you and stories from people just like you who have survived divorce.

Misuse of Domestic Violence Act

The domestic violence act hereinafter referred as dv act which was incorporated in the year 2005, The main purpose of this act is to prevent woman only woman from domestic violence, from the bare reading of the definition of the act we can see that the term “aggrieved person” includes only women, means only the men can be prosecuted not the woman, In the 21^st century we treat women at par with men and there have been many incidences where a women are involved in insult, humiliation, verbal and emotional abuse to men. It is not a rare possibility that women are indulging in domestic violence against men but this is a reality, our constitution guarantees equality, means men and women must be equally treated, then why in dv act there are provisions for women only and not for men, why women are protected and why there is presumption that men is the only gender which can do cruelty, domestic violence on women, why not vice-versa.

The dv act has given an undue advantage to the women and it is the most lethal weapon which women can use against men to extort, exploit, and threaten men community just like terrorism. The dv act has provisions like right to residence regardless of legal right on the property, maintenance. The provision in law makes the law easily vulnerable to misuse. which is a fact statistics have shown that only 2% of all the cases have resulted in conviction and 98% of the cases are deemed to be fake and there is no provision in dv act if a fake case is lodged then there is no provision for punishment for the women. For the name of protection of women the prosecution of innocent men is against the rule of law, A women can misuse the law very easily like for example  A man can be booked under the DV act if she feels that she has been insulted. Insult is a relative term, which is totally left to her discretion. Interestingly, if she insults and abuses him verbally or even physically, he does not have any legal recourse in this law, even the minor differences in matrimonial ties could invoke the provisions of DV act, moreover the procedure of law is governed by CRPC that means a man even making a very light insult to a women is treated like a criminal. if the case is false the reputation of man and his family is tainted and there are no steps or legal protection available to men to protect his reputation . In other words this law treats men like sitting ducks.

For taking easy divorce and maintenance the DV act is the first weapon used by the women even if she is not subjected to any such type of domestic violence, even if the matter is sub-judice the men are obliged to pay maintenance to women, this means that punishment for men start as soon as false complaint is lodged, which is against the principles of natural justice where there is presumption of innocence.

The fact is DV act has failed to attend the problems faced by women and men on subject of domestic violence, the law is often misused then to be used. The need of the society is to make more gender neutral laws which treat men and women equally in the cases of domestic violence and not to induce fear in the minds of innocent people like most of the men and give an extortion tool to the other gender. The DV act is gender biased on the face of it, The DV act needs to be amended with more gender neutral provisions to prevent its misuse and to achieve gender equality and fair justice.

“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.”
Mahatma Gandhi

The Critical Analysis of Novartis V Cipla Case Verdict by Supreme Court.

The Critical Analysis of Novartis V Cipla Case Verdict by Supreme Court.

In a landmark judgment that has the potential to change the direction of India's pharmaceutical business, The Supreme Court denied that the drug Glivec  manufactured by the pharma giant Novartis is qualified for getting patent in India.

A Brief about the Facts in Issue

Novartis a Swiss based pharmaceutical company filed a patent application in the year 1997 to grant patent to its drug named Glivec which was a critical drug used for the treatment of leukaemia on the ground that it invented the beta crystalline salt form (imatinib mesylate) of the free base, imatinib.

However at that time India was not in a position to grant patent to pharmaceutical products and agrochemical products, In the year 2005 in compliance with the TRIPS agreement India thereon started to grant patents in pharmaceutical drugs. Parliament introduced a significant and important provision to prevent ever greening and granting of frivolous patents— section 3(d).

Subsequently the matter of Novartis was taken up by the patent controller, CPAA and other generic companies filed pre-grant oppositions against Novartis patent application for imatinib mesylate, claiming, among other things, that Novartis alleged “invention” lacked novelty, was obvious to a person skilled in the art, and that it was merely a “new form” of a “known substance” that did not enhance the substance’s efficacy, and was thus not patentable under section 3(d).

Novartis was already granted Patent for the salt imatinib in the year 1993 in United States itself and the present application was based on one of the specific compound of the already invented salt.

The Application was rejected by the patent controller as the invention failed to comply with condition laid down by section 3(d) of the patent act.

This meant that the generic manufacturers were now free to manufacture the generic version of the drug.

But Novartis challenged the decision of patent controller in Madras High court in the year 2006 by filing number of writ petitions. Challenging to the constitutional validity of section 3(d) was that the use of the term “efficacy” in section 3(d) is vague and ambiguous, and therefore violates the equality provision (Article 14) of the Indian Constitution.

While dismissing Novartis’ writ petitions, the Madras High Court held: “We have borne in mind the object which the Amending Act wanted to achieve namely, to prevent ever greening; to provide easy access to the citizens of this country to life saving drugs and to discharge their Constitutional obligation of providing good health care to it’s citizens”.

Also held that the term “efficacy” was known in the pharmaceutical field to mean “therapeutic efficacy”. Therefore rejected the contention that it was vague.

After this the next phase of Litigation started in IPAB an appellate body of patent controller.

However IPAB overturned the Patent Controller’s findings on novelty and inventive step and held that the beta-crystalline form of imatinib mesylate was new and involved an inventive step.

But refused to grant patent as the Novartis failed to establish beta-crystalline form of imatinib mesylate exhibited significantly enhanced therapeutic efficacy over imatinib mesylate, the known substance .In contravention to section 3(d) of the act.

Challenging the IPAB’s order, Novartis approached the Supreme Court directly by filing a special leave petition challenging the IPAB’s interpretation and application of section 3(d) to its patent application. Subsequently, CPAA and Natco filed cross-petitions challenging the IPAB’s findings on other issues including novelty and inventive step.

Supreme Court Observations

The main question before the Supreme Court was that

1. Whether the invention qualifies the section 3(d) of the patent act?

2. Interpretation of section 3(d) of patent act?

3. Whether the invention qualifies for the test of novelty and inventive for the alleged product?

The main contention of Novartis was that IPAB admitted that the substance is an invention in its impugned order and then applied section 3d of the act, It was contended that if it is admitted that the product is an invention then section 3d would not be applicable as section 3d is applicable to incremental inventions or discovery and not on new invention.

It was also contended that ‘efficacy‘ test is only applied on known substance but not in the case of beta-crystalline form of imatinib mesylate which is a new substance.

The approach of Supreme Court was simple in this case-:

1. Court observed that the product was a new form of substance not an entire new substance.  It has always existed in the original amorphous form. The product thus qualifies for the test laid by section 3d of the patent act.

2. This section says that just discovering a new form of a substance is not enough to grant a patent, if it does not enhance its "known efficacy".

3. On interpretation of section 3d of the act, Novartis tried to argue that the physico-chemical properties of the polymorph form of the imatinib molecule, i.e. better flow properties, better thermodynamic stability and lower hygroscopicity, resulted in improved efficacy. The Supreme Court firmly rejected this contention holding that in the case of medicines, efficacy means "therapeutic efficacy" and these properties while they may be beneficial to some patients do not meet this standard. The Supreme Court also held that patent applicants must prove the increase in therapeutic efficacy based on research data in vivo in animals.

4. Simply if the invention does not qualify the test of Therapeutic efficacy the invention can’t be granted patent, Thereby the true intention of the section 3d of patent act is fulfilled by stopping the concept of ever greening in critical sectors, moreover the supreme court held the strict view that patent in the field of medicine specially in the cases of life saving drug must be granted with

full caution so that larger interest of the masses are not affected to an extent that they lose right to live.

Conclusion

The SC judgement is a big relief for those people who can’t afford the lifesaving drugs manufactured by profit guzzling big pharma giants, there is a simple sense of humanity which needs to be preserved by the human race only. I say what is the purpose of an invention  when it is not affordable to the masses and cannot do good for mankind. Here we are talking about a drug which is a life saving drug priced way above the per capita income of the country. The Company in the name of patent prohibits those generic firms who are selling the generic version at an affordable rate, These Pharma big giants are corporates and claimed to have already made billion dollars and are becoming selfish thereby prohibiting people to buy the cheaper version and leaving only option to die because of the fact they are poor as if these Big pharma giants have a patent rights over their lives. I agree with the fact that patent is necessary to preserve one’s invention but that invention must be available to all at a rate reasonable to the masses then only the purpose of the invention would be fulfilled.

On the other hand the companies like Novartis, are doing just tweaking a single molecule call that whole thing as an invention and thus trying to obtain the monopoly over the lives of millions of masses.

The Supreme Court was clear that India is a developing country and cheap medicines are an essence for healthcare of 1 billion people. The Supreme Court has taken a right step and thereby prohibited the liberal approach in granting patents and thus filtering the genuine inventions with frivolous inventions. which allows these companies to make huge amount of inventions

Regarding the investment in innovation in India, This decision is a huge setback to the investors who are interested in investing in India for R&D, I say that they must be cautious that whatever they are inventing should be as per the Indian market conditions or else they will face great amount of dissatisfaction as in the cases of Novartis, Bayer etc. Indian patent environment is not like US and the EU, Rather it is more society dependent than inventor dependent which is exactly the way should be. Following the judgement Novartis had withdrew all its investments of research in India.

By-:

Nitish Banka