NUJS Kolkata professor Shamnad Basheer and a music company filed two public interest litigations (PILs) in the Madras High Court to mend gross “infirmities” and arbitrary “tribunalisation” in the constitution and functionality of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) and the Copyright Board.
Senior advocate Arvind P Datar was instructed by advocate Ananth Padmanabhan for both the writ petitions taken up together for hearing yesterday by the division bench comprising of Chief Justice M Y Eqbal and justice T S Sivagnanam.
According to blog Spicy IP, which was founded by Basheer, the bench has issued notice to the central government for filing of reply within three weeks as the petitioner’s arguing counsel Datar successfully convinced the court that judicial discretion lacked in the appointments of members of the IPAB.
The bench was reluctant to entertain the petition initially on the grounds that they could not interfere with appointments [to IPAB] made by the Supreme Court a contention which Datar countered by stating that none of the appointments had been done after consulting the apex court, reported Spicy IP. Datar highlighted this to be the precise problem and supported it by written submissions placing reliance on the Supreme Court judgement of Union of India Vs R Gandhi (National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) case).
Basheer’s research assistant Prashant Reddy helped on the case and blogged on Spicy IP that NCLT case was the basis of both the petitions serving a precedent for having had the SC strike down key provisions of the company tribunal in that case.
“The Supreme Court had struck down those provisions [for the creation of NCLT] on the grounds that they violated the ‘Separation of Powers’ doctrine which requires the judiciary to be independent of the Executive and also the fundamental right of citizens to have their disputes adjudicated by person who possess the requisite judicial independence and qualifications to discharge judicial functions. It bears noting that Mr. Arvind Datar was the lawyer who successfully argued the NCLT case before the Supreme Court. Ananth was also a part of the team which briefed Mr. Datar for the Supreme Court hearings,” Reddy explained.
A number of merit-based contentions were advanced to question the IP appellate bodies such as bureaucraticsing the judicial functions of the tribunals, inept qualification and aptitude of both the technical and judicial members appointed to IPAB, inefficient administration etc.
“It is doubtful whether the Central Government actually investigated the viability and suitability of the IPAB, especially since there has been a concerted move by the Central Government bureaucracy to. Starting from 1999 the Central Government attempted to transfer three crucial functions of High Courts by creating new tribunals such as the National Company Law Tribunal, the National Tax Tribunal and the Intellectual Property Appellate Board.”
Further, the role of Indian Legal Service (ILS) cadre in the process of tribunalisation has been pointed out in the petition.
“ILS officers are meant to serve as Legal Officers in the Ministry of Law and Justice and are usually lateral hires. These officers are usually involved only in policy matters and do not represent the Central Government in any litigation. Despite these officers not having any practical judicial experience both the IPAB and the NCLT were created in such a manner that these officers could be appointed as judicial members to both tribunals. The reason that this was possible is because ILS officers are in control of the Legislative Department of the Ministry of Law and Justice and it is these officers who prepare the final version of any legislation which is tabled before Parliament. To put it simply, the ILS officers have been drafting legislations in such a manner to provide themselves with post-retirement havens.”
Most importantly the current petitions have been prompted by the need to streamline the inherent incompetence evident in the dismal pendency rate of cases before the appellate boards, as per Spicy IP.
“While the IPAB was probably set up to speed up pendency, the actual disposal rates published by the DIPP shows the complete inefficiency of the system. Of the 2245 trademark cases transferred to the IPAB, only 901 cases were decided in this period. Of the 155 patent cases transferred to the IPAB only 21 cases were decided by the IPAB.”
Fought in “public interest”, the cost of the case is wholly borne by Basheer with arguing counsel Datar acting on a pro bono basis.
Shambo Nandy, Sai Vinod Nayani and Debanshu Khettry were the other NUJS students who helped on the case.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
[Many thanks for pointing out, we have fixed the unintentioal error. -Ed]
Want me to list them?
Also, #5's comment is interesting. The moment someone does something noteworthy, why is it that those around them instinctively tend to want to pull them down? EVEN IF there are these so called 'infirmities' in NUJS, would you rather that that those from NUJS stay content with the 'infirmities' everywhere else? Please stop being ridiculously lame.
As far as your little taunt - nobody denies that NUJS isn't perfect. But, it's surely a place where you can draw inspiration from to try to work towards solutions to those little imperfections. In fact, I am confident that it was the first school to reject the idea of blindly aping the 'NLS model' on every goddamn thing - something other national law schools are just too eager to do.
More than Basheer's andolans making you sick, reading about these should make your realize the lack of such andolans elsewhere.
No.5 - Please try and gain inspiration rather than being jealous and untoward.
Mr.Basheer should clarify whether there is any understanding between the music companies association and him and whether any drafting of PIL by Mr.Basheer is also pro boon?
“The right to a fair and impartial system for the administration of justice is also an integral part of the right to life conferred under Article 21. The improper constitution of the IPAB disregards this fundamental right and derogates from it”
The Ground N of Mr.Shamnad Basheer’s petition, purported to be drafted in the year 2011 as per the word file, reads as under:-
“N.The right to a fair and impartial system for the administration of justice is also an integral part of the right to life conferred under Article 21. The improper constitution of the IPAB disregards this fundamental right and derogates from it.”
Surprising that SIMCA petition, which appears to be 2010 wp petition ( the word file mentions it as “W.P. NO. _____ OF 2010” ) has an identical paragraph from the subsequent petition of Mr. Basheer’s, which mentions itself as “W.P. NO. _____ OF 2011”.
"I should probably give you a little bit of background to these petitions.
Ananth and me are friends from law school, he was my senior. I was aware that he was working for Mr. Datar at the time of the NCLT case. Therefore when we were searching for a lawyer, Ananth was the natural choice as he had an exceptionally good understanding of the challenge that we wanted to pose to the IPAB and also he had an excellent working relationship with Mr. Datar.
As chance would have it Ananth was representing SIMCA in its Copyright Litigation before the Madras High Court since September and he was already contemplating a challenge against the Copyright Board.
Did we co-ordinate our strategy and draftings? Yes, we did. Considering that Ananth was the lawyer on the record for both petitions he was legally and ethically bound to ensure that the common arguments were consistent. So please don't rob Ananth of the credit due to him.
As for the timings of the plea, we have already stated that Mr. Datar and Ananth were appearing pro bono and we had no objection if both petitions were taken up together at their convenience.
So were there coincidences? Yes! It was a coincidence that Ananth was SIMCA's lawyer at the time when we approached him.
I hope this clarifies your grand conspiracy theories."
and who exactly is posting these rants like anonymous comments? obviously someone who is acting for radio mirchi or one of these stations...and is quite happy with an order passed by an incompetent body......but doesn't give a damn about the future of the copyright board...but wants it to run in exactly the same fashion with lack of expertise and violating our sacred constitution...and doesn't have the courage to even reveal their identity...pathetic really!
Public interest means in the larger public interest and devoid of any personal interest of any nature whatsoever.... I leave it to the larger public to judge for themselves whether an aggrieved party having failed to get a stay over an order passed a tribunal should be allowed to raise the public interest angle ??
Hey Prashant, my apologies if you have been offended, but you guys are champion of civil liberties no doubt......
About simca taking help from basheer petition, only surprising is that simca's petition seems to be the prior in time........
Self-styled saviours who have no face or ground in the midst of pubic at large, of late, try to use such litigations to keep themselves busy and their names in circulation, despite having really become defunct in actual public life and try to smear and smirch the solemnity of Court proceedings. They must really inspire confidence in Courts and among the public, failing which such litigation should be axed with heavy hand and dire consequences.
I have just finished reading the rather malicious comments you've been leaving on this post. It saddens me a great deal, particularly when we have put in a lot of time and effort into something that we thought would greatly benefit IP adjudication in this country. These tribunals suffer from serious deficiencies that need immediate fixing.... Fortunately, we were able to engage Mr Datar who as you may know is a fierce opponent of indiscriminate tribunalisation of justice. He took the NCLT case all the way to the Supreme Court and got an order in his favour. It is the very same case that we are deploying to challenge the constitutionality of these poorly conceived and structured tribunals. Ananth Padmanabhan, who is now counsel for SIMCA was closely involved with Mr Datar as his junior during the NCLT days. It was the best team we could possibly engage.
I filed a writ only against the IPAB in my name. and the IPAB is of far greater interest to us than the copyright board, since the matters it has jurdn over are far more significant and cover both patents and trademarks.
the copyright board writ has been filed by Simca. so firstly, let there be no confusion on this front. do i have an interest in the copyright matter, despite it being filed by Simca and not by me?
Of course, I do!---it is an IP tribunal I've been following closely for the last couple of years and have also written out against in several of my posts on SpicyIP. you should do your homework and go back and read them---i suspect you have done so, but are deliberately doing this to misinform and malign.
Why didn't I file in my name? I can't possibly file all litigations in my name, can I? will you pay my court fees and other expenses associated with all these litigations? and spend all the time tracking them, following them up, filing responses and requesting good souls to spend their valuable time appearing for you pro-bono. Try doing something of this nature for a change, and you will realise how difficult and time consuming it is....and to top it all, there are plenty of other vicious elements like you out there who will stop at nothing to discredit.
You (or perhaps someone who is closely aligned with you) left similar comments on SpicyIP and i had already responded there...though i suspect you're not really looking to engage with a truthful response.....:
"wonderful sleuthing i say. and reflective of what would appear to be an exceptionally high IQ. not many could have connected these two dots together....particularly since we posted both the petitions on this very blog in the very same article ! an aspect that neither the press nor any of you would have known unless we'd posted it...
and doubly wonderful of you to spot our interest in the copyright petition, given that we have been arguing against the constitutionality of the copyright board for almost two years on this blog now!
in fact, in an earlier blog post (spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2009/07/compulsory-licensing-by-copyright-board.html), i had noted:
"The Government of India ought to seriously review the constitutional implications of such a Board with no real copyright expertise. For it will be a criminal waste of time and resources, if it permitted the Board to continue with its proceedings only to find at the end that it suffered from serious constitutional infirmities."
do people read older blog posts? perhaps not. homework appears to take a backseat when one is blessed with an exceptionally high sleuthing IQ :-)."
Shamnad Basheer
If we had ulterior motives, we would have never posted the copyright board petition or even mentioned it on spicyip. we made this available to all of you because we have nothing to hide. We've always advocated against the copyright board on spicyip....even before it released its decision...and will continue doing so, until it is repaired. Notwithstanding your malevolent taunts and grand conspiracy theories!
And please do have the courage to disclose what your real interest is. We've been completely transparent here. What is your real grouse? You think the copyright board should continue as it is. You fear that the copyright board ruling would be overturned by a constitutional challenge? If the latter, have no worry. again, as mentioned to you in an earlier comment on spicyip:
"And pray don't fret. Your hard earned victory against your radio station clients is unlikely to be dislodged by this constitutionality challenge. For, there is something called the doctrine of necessity. And I had noted in an earlier post that: (spicyipindia.blogspot.com/2010/09/issuing-radio-compulsory-licences-in.html)
"Even assuming Mr Singh's appointment is held illegal or irregular on some ground, this will not, by itself, vitiate the proceedings of the Copyright Board. As mentioned earlier, under the de facto doctrine and the doctrine of necessity, courts are likely to uphold the validity of the proceedings, notwithstanding any irregularity in the appointment of members adjudicating the dispute/proceedings."
Again, something you might have spotted easily, had you taken the time and effort to do your reading and homework. High level sleuthing IQ's and ability to spin grand conspiracy theories do not always translate to legal knowledge. So why don't you sit down one of these days and read these posts. It might help you in the quality of advise you render to your clients as well. All the very best."
Shamnad Basheer
I reiterate that please be more tolerant towards minority and unpleasant views. I still don't agree with aligning synergies with private parties, regardless of the benefits you highlighted, and filing common PIL's . Challenging the constitutionality need not necessarily be through a PIL. And the first hurdle which debutant activits have to cross is to demonstrate bonafides and establish that they are purely ventilating a public grievance and are not aligning with private parties who are before Court. In so far as the pains associated with filing PIL is concerned, it is not befitting for some one of your stature to give excuses like time, money, expenditure... And following on PIL is not a problem for you at least..... We look upto you to break news on latest happenings in the field of law.... And I am sure you won't have problem finding pro bono lawyers..... You have been attributing motives to me and I am reiterating that I am commenting without any personal interest.... You are within your right to question commentators IQ...
4. For the above reasons, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the Copyright Board from adjudicating any cases pending the final disposal of this writ petition and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
Further, it is stated in the writ petition as under-
"The petitioner has also been instrumental in filing statutory appeals under Section 72 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter the “Act”) challenging the order of the Copyright Board dated 25th Aug., 2010, wherein the Board has fixed the royalty payable by the applicant FM radio broadcasters to the music companies including members of the petitioner, at 2% of the net advertisement revenue earned by the FM radio stations. This order has been passed in complete violation of the statutory requirements mandated under section 31 of the Act, and the petitioner has filed appeals against this order since all its members are aggrieved by the decision making process as well as the final outcome. In fact, this decision of the Board is a classic example of how the process of adjudication can be performed in an extremely improper manner, if done by persons who are not trained in the law. The petitioner apprehends similar adjudication contrary to all norms of the judicial process if the Copyright Board is allowed to be constituted as per the provisions of Sections 11 and 12."
I'm afraid I don't understand you. I've always been interested in repairing a constitutionally flawed copyright board. And have been advocating so for the last 2 years! I should suddenly stop being "interested", since Simca has now acquired an interest in the very same issue. And should stop worrying about this board that will now go on to decide plenty of other disputes and waste tax payers' money in the process.
Pray enlighten me! What is your definition of public and private interest? Ought public interest to be fought only on issues which impact no other stakeholder to a dispute? Where are you getting these definitions from?
In litigations where there are two stakeholders litigating on either side, we, as public interest litigants, must pull out of thin air a third position, since we assume that none of the parties are advocating a position that is optimal from a policy perspective?
If you're serious about such a policy debate and your intentions are good, I'm with you. And will spend as much time with you in debating this through and through and gaining more clarity myself. But if your intentions are otherwise, take a long hard hike!
And please remember that the challenge by Simca is against the government re: the constitutionality of the copyright board. Not against another private party. And certainly not an appeal against the order of the copyright board re: the specific compulsory licensing dispute, as you seem to wrongfully allege. So please get your facts right.
Let me reiterate again:
The IPAB challenge is the one to which I am party. The SIMCA copyright challenge is different and filed by Simca. I have to establish bonafides in the petition that I've filed i.e the IPAB petition. And i guess the honourable court was convinced of the petition that I filed, which is why they admitted it. So you're point about "the first hurdle which debutant activits have to cross is to demonstrate bonafides and establish that they are purely ventilating a public grievance and are not aligning with private parties who are before Court" is PLAIN HOGWASH.
The SIMCA petition may certainly have benefitted from our research for the IPAB petition, since the issues are very similar. Two badly constituted bodies with incompetent people that need to be taken to task! And the lawyer filing and arguing the case are one and the same! This is not rocket science!
Please engage in a more truthful and honest debate without deliberating distorting facts and issues with a clear intent to malign me and my team. How can I not attribute motives to you when you still haven't explained where you are coming from, despite all these explanations on SpicyIP and here. Explanations that are very clear and simple to understand and appreciate... and yet you persist in continuing with a malafide rant about our motives...
It does you no good and is frankly a waste of my time. Please try and spend some of your valuable time doing something that might translate to a meaningful contribution to legal policy....rather than maliciously attacking those that are seriously attempting to do so....
Shamnad Basheer
"Prof. Shamnad also pointed out, that a similar petition challenging the constitutionality of the Copyright Board, another incompetent tribunal was also admitted immediately after the IPAB petition. This writ has been filed by Advocate Ananth Padmanabhan on behalf of SIMCA (South India Music Companies Association), a recording industry association from South India. Senior Advocate Arvind Datar appeared for this matter as well."
Mr. Basheer may kindly inform if any arguments were advanced in the Copyright Board petition as well and were any arguments advanced on the pending SIMCA appeals against the Copyright Board?
Even though your response is addressed to Shamnad, I WILL take it personally cos im a reader and I get pissed with some of ur comments.
"I reiterate that please be more tolerant towards minority and unpleasant views. I still don't agree with aligning synergies with private parties, regardless of the benefits you highlighted, and filing common PIL's ." - TO HELL WITH YOU. EITHER YOU BRING SOME EVIDENCE OF SOME VESTED INTEREST OR YOU JUST KEEP BARKING.
"Challenging the constitutionality need not necessarily be through a PIL." - NOW U WILL DECIDE WHAT SHOULD BE NECESSARY AND WHAT SHOULD BE NOT? ANSWER ONE SIMPLE QUESTION. IS HE UNDER THE LAW ALLOWED TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OR NOT UNDER A PIL. STUPID IDIOT.
"And the first hurdle which debutant activits have to cross is to demonstrate bonafides and establish that they are purely ventilating a public grievance and are not aligning with private parties who are before Court." - YOU MORON, THE COURTS OF LAW ARE WELL EQUIPPED TO DETERMINE THE BONAFIDES. IF THEY WERE NOT, THEN PROBABLY AN IDIOT LIKE YOU WOULD BE SITTING AS A JUDGE RIGHT NOW. THANK GOD THATS NOT THE CASE.
"In so far as the pains associated with filing PIL is concerned, it is not befitting for some one of your stature to give excuses like time, money, expenditure... And following on PIL is not a problem for you at least....." -NOW U WILL TELL WHAT BEFITS HIM AND WHAT NOT. WHEN WILL U GROW UP. IF HES SAYING TRY AND DO IT ONCE THEN U WILL UNDERSTAND THEN WHY THE HELL DONT U DO THAT FIRST U COWARD BEFORE BARKING BACK. I HAVE SEEN SHAMNAD AND I KNOW HOW BUSY HE IS ALL THE TIME. ITS A WONDER HE COULD EVEN TAKE OUT TIME FOR U TO RESPOND HERE.
My advice: Just stop whining and try and do something productive. You barking overhere wont make any difference. If u have something then just goto court.
You say: Why should the public interest angle be used to assail the judgment of Copyright Board..... How can independent activists align or share synergies with a party which has not succeeded to obtain a stay over the order of the Copyright Board, and decide to file common PIL's. And why should their motives not be questioned......
My answer: Thats because the entire constitution of the Copyright Board is wrong and unconstitutional....Over here and in the entire petition, no one is assailing any particular judgment of the Copyright Board but just stating that bureaucrats without enough exposure to the practice of law cannot sit as judges and decide matters where crores of rupees are at stake..This is not only an assumption in the minds of the petitioners but a legitimate fear expressed by the Supreme Court in the NCLT case
And no common PILs were filed....Due to common grounds and same lawyers handling the case, the language of some paras might be similar but overall they are not
You say: You have been questioning motives for writing these comments, but why is such intolerance shown to dissent and criticism? It can't be either with you or against you.
My answer: Your motives are being questioned because of the reasons you are mentioning..If you could have come out with cogent reason highlighting any true fault of the petitioners, then your motive would have definitely not been questioned
You say: Public interest means in the larger public interest and devoid of any personal interest of any nature whatsoever.... I leave it to the larger public to judge for themselves whether an aggrieved party having failed to get a stay over an order passed a tribunal should be allowed to raise the public interest angle ??
My answer: Tell me, if the way the IPAB is functioning and is disposing of cases is not according to constitutional norms and someone decides to challenge it and make way for better adjudication of IP disputes, the what is wrong about it? What personal interest does Mr basheer have in any case before the IPAB? And you keep on harping about the Copyright Board in the radio stations case...If teh radio stations case would not have come up, dont you think the constitutionality of the Copyright Board was still wrong in the first place
[To be honest, this discussion seems to have mutated into a lot of abuse and much reason has gone from the debate. It would be reaosnable for any blog to have moderated such discussions. -Ed]
Given the fact that the Madras High Court admitted both petition it can be presumed that the Bench was convinced of the bonafides of the case. Thankfully for us you were not on the Bench.
I would also like to clarify that for PILs it is not only the bona-fides of the petitioner but also the issues raised in the petition which need to be looked at. Therefore when a student challenged the National Green Tribunal before the Madras High Court on similar grounds the Madras High Court admitted his petition. There is no rule that a commercial entity cannot file a PIL.
As for finding lawyers to do pro bono work, I assure you, finding good lawyers to work for free is extremely difficult and when Lady Luck smiles on us by getting Mr. Datar and Ananth to appear for us pro bono we will do anything and everything to ensure that things are done according to their convenience. You may not be aware of this fact but Mr. Datar and Ananth were part of the winning team in the NCLT case before the Supreme Court. They are THE authorities on tribunalization in India. If we therefore had to co-ordinates strategies and dates with Ananth's client, we didn't see it as a problem and besides this we too wanted the copyright board shut down. In fact both Shamnad and me even made this argument in a representation to Parliament. Those submissions are available on the Spicyip.com website.
We are not going to apologize for co-ordinating with SIMCA. The truth will triumph and we will continue to be morally superior to you because unlike you we have the decency to post comments under our true identity.
I'm sure you will be waiting with a vicious retort, which Legally India will allow, but you will excuse my further silence on this issue since I have more pressing issues right now.
Warm Regards,
Prashant Reddy
Hope that clarifies the doubts.
Warm Regards,
Prashant Reddy
I think you are just making these assertions to make people doubt the genuine concerns of the petitions
Sameer
“During the course of its interactions with various Stakeholders, storing reservation were expressed about the functioning of the Copyright Board and other allied issues. The Committee also had the opportunity to hold discussion with the Chairman of the Board about its functioning. The Committee also sought clarification on various related issues from the Department. This exercise enabled the Committee to have a fair idea of the present set up of the Copyright Board and existing problem areas in its functioning faced by the stakeholders as well as the Copyright Board.
21.9 Following drawbacks in the composition and functioning of the Copyright Board were pointed out byvarious stakeholders:-
- The Act specifies the criteria for appointing only the Chairperson of the Copyright Board and the Central Government has the unbridled discretion in determining the membership of the Board.
- The Copyright is deemed to be a Civil Court under section 12 of the Act serving officers cannot be members of any tribunal or court as independence of the judiciary cannot be compromised by appointing members of the Executive to tribunal or courts.
……
21.11 Another area of concern highlighted by the stakeholders related to changes required in the composition of the members of the Board. It was pointed out that in view of manifold responsibilities assigned to the Copyright Board, members of the Board needed to be full time members, instead of ex-officio members. Another suggestion made was that experts and specialists having the understanding of publishing and entertainment industry and also competition law policy have to be there on the Board. When this issue was taken up with the Department, the Committee was informed that appointment of full-time members in the Copyright Board was under its active consideration. Further a five member committee has already been appointed to draft the rules of procedure relating to the functioning of the Board.
Contd....
21.15 The Committee was informed that the Registrar of Copyright, head of the Copyright Office and a quasijudicial authority himself has continued in this capacity since 1958 when the Copyright Board came into existence. It was contended that so far no objection had been raised in this regard. However, it was also admitted that keeping in view likely increase in the workload of the Copyright Board relating to licensing, the proposal for making the Board to function on full-time basis was under consideration. Accordingly, the present dual role of the Registrar in administration of Copyright Office and providing Secretarial support to the Board needed re-examination.
21.16 The Committee observes that the responsibilities of the Copyright Board, a very important statutory body assigned very crucial powers and functions, have increased manifold over the years. Not only this, in the light of changing global scenario with emerging areas coming under the Copyright Law, the need for strengthening the Copyright Board is being increasingly felt. It has to be a full time Board with inclusion of experts in specified areas related to Copyright law. The Committee is happy to note that exercise in this direction has already been initiated by the Department. The Committee will appreciate if all the corrective measures are taken at the earliest by the Department. Besides that, the Committee is also of the firm view that all the provisions in the Act as well as in the rules relating to the Copyright Board may be reviewed and amendments carried out in the light of suggestions put forth before it.
21.17 The heart and soul of copyrights depends on three mechanisms such as (i) Copyright Societies (ii) Registrar of Copyright and (iii) Copyright Board. If all the three are independent and dynamic then only the copyright justice will be perfect and reliable. The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Government should act emergently to revitalize these three institutions by formulating clear rules and appointing fulltime experts and professional with accountability clubbed with sufficient powers. More so all the three organizations are to be fully modernized with all e-management system and manned by professionals and technical experts.”
Were SIMCA , Shamnand and Prashant who have drafted the writ petitions (as admitted by them) not duty bound to plead in the writ petition that the Parliamentary Standing Committee has critically commented on the functioning of the Copyright Board and that the Department of HRD had assured the Committee that the Department is taking steps to address the issues mentioned in SIMCA writ petition filed before the Court, at paragraph 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 & 22 and grounds urged as A,B,C,D,F,G,H,I, J,K & L?
When identical submissions were made before a Parliamentary Standing Committee, then why were the observations of the Committee and the views of the Department not pleaded in the writ petition?
sameer from golmaal
Motivated Petitioner are being slapped with fines...
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first