UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

TEAM CODE:

UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW MOOT COURT

Before

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

DIZER VS U.O.I

UNION OF INDIA ……………………………………………………………………………………………RESPONDENT

VERSUS

DIZER …PETITIONER

BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS COMPANION JUSTICES

OF

THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF THE INDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 1

 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................................... 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................ 4

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. 5

[A] BOOKS: ..................................................................................................................... 5

[B] STATUTES: ............................................................................................................... 5

[C] WEBSITES: ................................................................................................................ 5

[D] DICTIONARY: .......................................................................................................... 6

[E] CASES CITED: ........................................................................................................... 6

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................................... 7

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................... 8

ISSUES RAISED ................................................................................................................ 11

ISSUE 1 .......................................................................................................................... 11

Whether the special leave petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable or not? ............. 11

ISSUE 2 .......................................................................................................................... 11

Whether the amendment dated 16.04.2021 is valid in terms of TRIPs Agreement or not? 11

ISSUE 3 .......................................................................................................................... 11

Whether the letter dated 25.04.2021 is violative of the provisions of part III of Constitution
of Indiana? ...................................................................................................................... 11

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ......................................................................................... 11

1. Whether the special leave petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable or not? ...... 12

2. Whether the amendment dated 16.04.2021 is valid in terms of TRIPs Agreement or not?
12

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 2

 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

3. Whether the letter dated 25.04.2021 is violative of the provisions of part III of
Constitution of Indiana? .................................................................................................. 12

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ............................................................................................. 13

1 Whether the special leave petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable or not? .......... 13

1.1 Irrespective of the locus standi of the Appellants, the Petition for Special Leave is not
maintainable ................................................................................................................
13

1.2 Non-interference in the decision of the lower courts:.............................................. 14

1.3 Scope of Powers under Article 136: ....................................................................... 15

2. Whether the amendment dated 16.04.2021 is valid in terms of TRIPs Agreement or not?
........................................................................................................................................ 16

2.1 ............................................................................................................................... 16

2.2 ............................................................................................................................... 16

2.3 ............................................................................................................................... 16

3. Whether the letter dated 25.04.2021 is violative of the provisions of part III of
Constitution of
Indiana? ...................................................................................................................... 18

3.1 ............................................................................................................................... 18

3.2 ............................................................................................................................... 19

3.3 ............................................................................................................................... 20

3.4 ............................................................................................................................... 20

PRAYER ............................................................................................................................ 21

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 3

 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

V. VERUS

AIR ALL INDIA REPORTER

IPC INDIAN PENAL CODE

SEC. SECTION

ART. ARTICLE

HON’BLE HONOURABLE

CrPC CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

CPC Civil Procedural Code

PIL Public interest Litigation

ORS. OTHERS

UOI Union Of India

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 4

 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

[A] BOOKS:

1. MP JAIN--- INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (VOLUME-1)

2. IPR V K AHUJA

3. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DR B L WADEHRA

[B] STATUTES:

1. DOHA DECLARATION 2001

2. TRIPs AGREEMENT

3. CIVIL PROCIDURAL CODE

4. CONSTITUITION OF INDIA, 1872

[C] WEBSITES:

1. mindecl_trips_e.pdf

2. 27-trips.pdf

3. Patent Act.pdf

4. Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution and keeping the question of law open |
SCC Blog (scconline.com)

[D] DICTIONARY:

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 5

 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

1. www.legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com

2. www.legaldictionary.net

3. www.thelawdictionary.org – Black’s Law Dictionary

[E] CASES CITED:

1. N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196

2. Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169
3. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546
4. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467
5. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4618
6. Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15
7. Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806
8. Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 323
9. Mathai Joby v. George, (2010) 4 SCC 358
10. Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, AIR 2000 SC 1573
11. DCM v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414
12. Mehar Singh v. Shri Moni Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, AIR 2000 SC 492
13. Nain Singh Bhakuni v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 622
14. Asst. Controller, Central Excise v. N T Co., AIR 1972 SC 2563
15. Panchanan Misra v. Digambar Mishra, AIR 2005 SC 1299
16. Taherkhatoon v. Sala,bin Mohammam, AIR 1999 SC 1104
17. Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC)

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE RESPONDENT HAVE THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT BEFORE THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, THE MEMORANDUM FOR THE
RESPONDENT IN AN APPEAL FILED BY APPELLANT UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 6

 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950

THE RESPONDENT WOULD LIKE TO HUMBLY SUBMIT THAT THIS

SPECIAL LEAVE FOR APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

BACKGROUND:

The State of Indiana is a Sovereign Democratic Republic country situated in the south-eastern
part of Masia, which enjoys a rich cultural and traditional heritage. Indiana got its
independence in 1947 from the Nitishers, who ruled Indiana for over two centuries and

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 7

 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

exploited the residents of Indiana. 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.
Indiana is bordered by the States of Myna, Bakistan, Tutan and Shangladesh. In 2001, the
Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health was adopted by the WTO
Ministerial Conference of 2001. It provided for flexibility to the members of the TRIPS for
imposing certain restrictions on the patent rights to achieve better access to health facilities.

THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS OF THE DOHA DECLARATION

The TRIPS Agreement does not and should not prevent Members from taking measures to
protect public health. Accordingly, while reiterating our commitment to the TRIPS
Agreement, we affirm that the Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in
a manner supportive of WTO Members' right to protect public health and, in particular, to
promote access to medicines for all. ¨ In this connection, we reaffirm the right of WTO
Members to use, to the full, the provisions in the TRIPS Agreement, which provide flexibility
for this purpose. ¨ Accordingly and in the light of paragraph 4 above, while maintaining our
commitments in the TRIPS Agreement, we recognize that these flexibilities include: In
applying the customary rules of interpretation of public international law, each provision of
the TRIPS Agreement shall be read in the light of the object and purpose of the Agreement as
expressed, in particular, in its objectives and principles. Each Member has the right to grant
compulsory licenses and the freedom to determine the grounds upon which such licenses are
granted. Each Member has the right to determine what constitutes a national emergency or
other circumstances of extreme urgency, it being understood that public health crises,
including those relating to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics, can
represent a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency. The effect of the
provisions in the TRIPS Agreement that are relevant to the exhaustion of intellectual property
rights is to leave each Member free to establish its own regime for such exhaustion without
challenge, subject to the MFN and national treatment provisions of Articles 3 and 4. WTO

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 8

 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

Members with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities in the pharmaceutical sector could

face difficulties in making effective use of compulsory licensing under the TRIPS
Agreement.

SUDDEN EMERGENCEY IN INDIANA

Alliance Group is one of the largest corporate conglomerates based in the State of Indiana,
which has its business spread in a number of states in and around Masia. There are several
controversies pertaining to the relations of the Alliance Group to the political party in power
in Indiana. In the year 2017, Alliance Group introduced a proposal for setting a Vaccine
Research and Manufacturing Institute before the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of Indiana. ¨ After several rounds of discussions and deliberations, it was
mutually agreed 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. The VERUM INSTITUTE was inaugurated by the Hon'ble Prime Minister of
Indiana in 2019. As per proposal, the VERUM INSTITUTE started manufacturing and
supplying vaccines to the Central and State Government at marginal rates. In the month of
March, 2020, the State of Indiana was hit by the wrath of the MOVID-19 pandemic resulting
into a nationwide lockdown for a period of two months. As a result of the MOVID-19,
thousands of people died and many lost their source of livelihood, in order to tackle the same,
the State and the Central government of Indiana launched many schemes and programmes to
mitigate the disastrous impact of the
MOVID-19 pandemic. By the time of March’21 Indiana was hit very badly with the 2nd
wave and so govt. decided to speed up the vaccination programme, but the verum institute
was not able to cope up with the needs of the govt. So that govt. decided to use the
compulsory license of Dizer.

PIL FILLED BY DIZER [ PETITIONER]

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 9

 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

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. ¨ That 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. ¨ Further, 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.
¨ 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. ¨ 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. ¨ That 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. ¨ 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.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 10

 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1

Whether the special leave petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable or not?

ISSUE 2

Whether the amendment dated 16.04.2021 is valid in terms of TRIPs Agreement or not?

ISSUE 3

Whether the letter dated 25.04.2021 is violative of the provisions of part III of

Constitution of Indiana?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 11

 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

1. Whether the special leave petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable or not?

It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that in the given factual matrix, there is no
necessity or compulsion for the intervention of this Hon’ble Court and invoking its powers
under Article 136.
An appeal shall lie to the supreme court from any judgement, decree or final order in a civil
proceeding of a high court in the territory of India (if the high court certifies under article
134A) appeal should have been given if there is substantial question of law as to
interpretation of constitution .opinion of high court is also necessary as per article 133 after
that the special leave petition should be given here it is not maintanable.

2. Whether the amendment dated 16.04.2021 is valid in terms of TRIPs Agreement

or not?

Under such pandemic if the government is opting to take patent from any company then use it
for public welfare for curing the disease and all though these facts the remuneration amount
of fee of the right holder will be given on the selling of the vaccine, and all these things have
been discussed with TRIPs and DOHA declaration the state fully supports and looks on
behalf of public order here.

3. Whether the letter dated 25.04.2021 is violative of the provisions of part III of
Constitution of Indiana?

No it is not violative as it is used for a reasonable cause and for public order welfare and
intangible differentia is been observed here so there is no question of law or any fundamental
rights been violating under the 3rd part of constitution of India.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 12

 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1 Whether the special leave petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable or not? 1.1
Irrespective of the locus standi of the Appellants, the Petition for Special Leave is not

maintainable

1.1.1 Article 136 does not confer a Right of Appeal, but merely, a discretionary power to the
Supreme Court to be exercised for satisfying the demands of justice under exceptional
circumstance1. In Pritam Singh v. The State 2, the Supreme Court held that the power under
Article 136 is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. In concluding the
discussion on Article 136 in the same case, it was held the by the Supreme Court that
‘Generally speaking, this court will not grant Special Leave, unless it is shown that
exceptional and special circumstances exist, that substantial and grave injustice has been
done and that the case in question presents features of sufficient gravity to warrant a review
of the decision appealed against.’

1.1.2 Although the power has been held to be plenary, limitless 34, adjunctive, and
unassailable4
, in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India5 and Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri6
, it was held that the powers under Article 136 should be exercised with caution and in
accordance with law and set legal principles.

1.1.3 In the cases of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 7 and Shivanand Gaurishankar
Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills8, the Supreme Court has criticized the approach of
settling private disputes under Article 136, stating that it would lead to confusing results and

1 N. Suriyakala v. A. Mohandoss, (2007) 9 SCC 196

2 Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169
3 A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 1546
4 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SC 3467
5 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 4618
6 Aero Traders Private Limited v. Ravider Kumar Suri, AIR 2005 SC 15
7 Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi, AIR 2006 SC 1806
8 Shivanand Gaurishankar Baswanti v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills, (2008) 13 SCC 323
9
Mathai Joby v. George, (2010) 4 SCC 358

[Type here]
 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

lack of precedents. The Court observed that the Court is not bound to interfere even if there is
error of law in the impugned order9.

1.1.4 The counsel for the Respondents would also like to submit to this Hon’ble Court that
there is no pressing matter or question of law, for which, the intervention of this Court would
be necessary, i.e. there is no necessity to invoke the jurisdiction conferred upon this Hon’ble
Court under Article 136.

1.2 Non-interference in the decision of the lower courts:

1.2.1 If it appears prima facie that the order in question cannot be justified by any judicial
standard, the ends of justice and the need to maintain judicial discipline require the Supreme
Court to intervene10; the Supreme Court in this case pointed out the errors of the High Court,
but did not interfere in the decision of the High Court. The Supreme Court does not interfere
with the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal if it has taken all the relevant factors into
consideration and there has been no misapplication of the principles of law11.

1.2.2 Normally, in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136, the Supreme Court does not
interfere with the findings of the fact concurrently arrived at by the tribunal and the High
Court unless there is a clear error of law or unless some important piece of evidence has been
omitted from consideration12.

1.2.3 A question is not allowed to be raised for the first time in an appeal before the Supreme
Court13. It would refuse a question to be developed before it when it had neither been urged
before the High Court nor before the Appellate Tribunal14.

1.2.4 Though Article 136 is conceived in widest terms, the practice of the Supreme Court is
not to interfere on questions of fact except in exceptional cases when the finding is such that
it shocks the conscience of the court15.

10
Union of India v. Era Educational Trust, AIR 2000 SC 1573
11
DCM v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2414
12
Mehar Singh v. Shri Moni Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, AIR 2000 SC 492
13
Nain Singh Bhakuni v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 622
14
Asst. Controller, Central Excise v. N T Co., AIR 1972 SC 2563
15
Panchanan Misra v. Digambar Mishra, AIR 2005 SC 1299
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 14
 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

Hence, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court to dismiss the Petition for Special Leave
and allow the matter to be first heard by a Court in Delphi, after which, an appeal might be
preferred in this Hon’ble Court.

1.3 Scope of Powers under Article 136:

1.3.1 It is humbly submitted that if Special Leave is granted, the matter is registered as an
appeal and the Court does not take into cognizance all the points that may arise on appeal and
decide them on Merits16. The Supreme Court has also held that “it is not bound to go into
merits and even if we do so and declare the law or point our the error – still we may not
interfere if the justice of the case on facts does not require interference or if we feel that the
relief could be moulded in a different fashion.”17

1.3.2 The Supreme Court in Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala18 held that Article 136 consists
of two distinct stages, the first stage where the matter is merely being decided if it is to be
accepted as an appeal or not; if the Supreme Court decides to adjudicate the matter, it
becomes an appeal, if otherwise, the matter was never an appeal.

1.3.3 Hence, it is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that by reason of lack of any
specific matter that requires the intervention of this Hon’ble Court, the Court need not
entertain the matter; however, if this Hon’ble Court does decide to accept the Petition for
Special Leave, it is humbly submitted that this Hon’ble Court only adjudicate upon the order
of the Bombay High Court, i.e., not to hear this Appeal on merits, but merely, on the right
place of suing.

16
Taherkhatoon v. Sala,bin Mohammam, AIR 1999 SC 1104
17
Taherkhatoon v. Sala,bin Mohammam, AIR 1999 SC 1104
18
Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 245 ITR 360 (SC)
 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Page 15

2. Whether the amendment dated 16.04.2021 is valid in terms of TRIPs Agreement

or not?

2.1 As per Section 5 Article 27(2) of TRIPs agreement (Patentable Subject Matter) the
members may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their territory of
the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public or morality,
including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the
environment, provided that such exclusion is not made merely because the exploitation is
prohibited by their law. So as it states here the public welfare is been prioritised for
protecting human life its valid. 2.2 According to Article 30 of TRIPs agreement (Exceptions
to Rights Conferred) The members may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights
conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a
normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of
the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties. Here considerable
amount of remuneration is been given by the state of INR 450 each to the DIZER company.
So they should not complain on the grounds of not getting equal pay for them.

2.3 According to Article 31(a)(b)(c)(h) and (I) of TRIPs agreement

(a) authorization of such use shall be considered on its individual merits; here the
government is fully aware of the situation and is giving merits on making vaccines for
public welfare through local institute or agencies and will be providing best versions of
vaccines to rapidly come out of the pandemic.

(b) such use may only be permitted if, prior to such use, the proposed user has made efforts to
obtain authorization from the right holder on reasonable commercial terms and conditions
and that such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period of time. This
requirement may be waived by a Member in the case of a national emergency or other
circumstances of extreme urgency or in cases of public non-commercial use. In situations
of national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency, the right holder shall,
nevertheless, be notified as soon as reasonably practicable. In the case of public non-
commercial use, where the government or contractor, without making a patent search,
 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

knows or has demonstrable grounds to know that a valid patent is or will be used by or for
the government, the right holder shall be informed promptly;

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 16

 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

Here the right holder is been notified and is been fully aware of the situation of pandemic
all over the world not only in the country.

(c) the scope and duration of such use shall be limited to the purpose for which it was
authorized,

The state itself says until the national emergency only the VERUM INSTITUTE will use
the patent as soon as the pandemic gets over and everything goes to normal DIZER will
be getting their patent back.

(h) the right holder shall be paid adequate remuneration in the circumstances of each
case, taking into account the economic value of the authorization;

Here state pays adequate amount of remuneration to the right holder of INR 450 of the
patent.

(i) the legal validity of any decision relating to the authorization of such use shall be
subject to judicial review or other independent review by a distinct higher authority in that
Member;

To further substantiate arguments above it is provided in DOHA that TRIPs agreement does
not and should not prevent members to measure or to protect public health according to the
DOHA agreement section 4 where in it is clearly mentioned that -We agree that the TRIPS
Agreement does not and should not prevent Members from taking measures to protect public
health. Accordingly, while reiterating our commitment to the TRIPS Agreement, we affirm
that the Agreement can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of
WTO Members' right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to
medicines for all.

It reaffirmed flexibility of TRIPs member states in circumventing patent rights for better
access to essential medicines. (During national emergency)

3. Whether the letter dated 25.04.2021 is violative of the provisions of part III of
Constitution of Indiana?
 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

3.1 Objective is securing the public order and the public health in such grieve circumstances
of a pandemic and the law which we are trying to bring here that were not classifying DIZER
as in entity, what we are doing here is were not classifying any sort of company or any sort of
organization or individual who has patent at this moment the patent is in extreme need. It is
for all those people or scenario which is been dealt with in a situation like in pandemic so
there is a classification which is very much reasonable and it is having reasonable nexus with
the objective and thus if objective and reasonable classification is having a nexus so
intangible differentia is established. So when a intangible differentia is been established there
is no such discrimination under article 14.

Thus what Article 14 forbids is class-legislation but it does not forbid reasonable
classification.
The classification however must not be “arbitrary, artificial or evasive” but must be based on
some real and substantial bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be
achieved by the legislation. Article 14 applies where equals are treated differently without
any reasonable basis. But where equals and unequal are treated differently, Article 14 does
not apply. Class legislation is that which makes an improper discrimination by conferring
particular privileges upon a class of persons arbitrarily selected from a large number of
persons all of whom stand in the same relation to the privilege granted that between whom
and the persons not so favoured no reasonable distinction or substantial difference can be
found justifying the inclusion of one and the exclusion of the other from such privilege.

The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the act are two
distinct things. What is necessary is that there must be nexus between the basis of
classification and the object of the act which makes the classification. It is only when there is
no reasonable basis for a classification that legislation making such classification may be
declared discriminatory.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT
Page 19
 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 18

3.2 The true meaning and scope of Article 14 have been explained in a number of cases by
the supreme court. In view of this the propositions laid down in Damia case 9 still hold good
governing a valid classification and are as follows:

1. A law may be constitutional even though it relates to a single individual if on account

of some special circumstances or reasons applicable to him and not applicable to others, that
single individual may be treated as a class by itself

2. There is always presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute and the

burden is upon him who attacks it to show that there has been a clear transgression of
constitutional principles.

3. The presumption may be rebutted in certain cases by showing that on the fact of the
statue, there is no classification and no difference peculiar to any individual or class and not
applicable to any other individual or class, and yet the law hits only a particular individual or
class

4. It must be assumed that Legislature correctly understand and appreciates the need of
its own people that its law are directed to problem made manifest by experience and that its
discrimination are based on adequate grounds

5. In order to sustain the presumption of constitutionality the court may take into
consideration maters of common knowledge, matters of report, the history of the times and
may assume every state of facts which can be conceived existing at the time of the
legislation.

6. Thus the legislation is free to recognize degrees of harm and may confine its
restriction to those cases where the need is deemed to be the clearest.

7. While good faith and knowledge of the existing conditions on the part of a legislature
are to be presumed, if there is nothing on the face of the law or the surrounding
circumstances brought to the notice of the court on which the classification may reasonable
be regarded as based, the presumption of constitutionality cannot be carried to extent always
that there must be some undisclosed and unknown reason for subjecting certain individuals or
corporation to be hostile or discriminating legislation
9 Article 14 Right to Equality - LawPage
 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

8. The classification may be made on different bases e.g. geographical or according to

object or occupation or the like.

9. The classification made by the legislature need not be scientifically perfect or logically
complete. Mathematical nicety and perfect equality are not required. Equality before the law
does not require mathematical equality of all persons in all circumstances. Equal treatment
does not mean identical treatment. Similarly not identity of treatment is enough.

10. There can be discrimination both in the substantive as well as the procedural law.
Article 14 applies to both. If the classification satisfies the test laid down in the above
propositions, the law will be declared constitutional. The question whether a classification is
reasonable and proper and not must however, be judged more on commonsense than on legal
subtitles.

what article 14 forbids is discrimination by law that is treating persons similarly

circumstanced differently and treating those not similarly circumstanced in the same way or
as has been pithily put treating equals as unequals and unequals as equals. Article 14
prohibits hostile classification by law and is directed against discriminatory class legislation.

3.3 A legislature for the purpose of dealing with the complex problem that arise out of an
infinite variety of human relations cannot but proceed on some sort of selection or
classification of persons upon whom the legislation is to operate.

3.4 It is well settled that Article 14 frobid classification for the purpose of legislation. Its
is equally well settled that in order to meet the test of Article 14

(i) classification must be based on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or

things that are grouped together from those that are left out of group and (ii) the differentia
must have a rational nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by the executive or legislative
action under challenge.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT
Page 21
 UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT Page 20

PRAYER

Wherefore, it is prayed, considering the issues raised, arguments advanced, and authorities
cited, that this Hon'ble Supreme Court may be pleased to hold that:

1. the Special Leave Petition is not maintainable.

2. the Hon’ble SUPREM Court of Delhi, the amendment made on 16/4/21 is valid in terms of
TRIPS Agreement.
3. the letter dated on 25/4/21 is not violative of Indian constitutional and does not violate
fundamental rights of its citizens.

And pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that it may deem fit in the Best Interests of
Justice, Fairness, Equity and Good Conscience.
For This Act of Kindness, the Respondent Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

COUNSEL ON BEHALF
OF THE RESPONDENT