1. Writ petition seeking protection of national biodiversity and directions to challenge the patenting of a specific rice variety in international forums. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 1490
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand, CJI., C.J., V.N. Khare and M. Srinivasan, .JJ.
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 212 of 1998
Decided On: 16.11.1998
Research Foundation for Science, Technology & Ecology and Ors. Appellants
versus
Ministry of Agriculture and Ors. Respondent
The government's commitment to enact biodiversity and geographical indicator legislation and its active pursuit of legal challenges against foreign patents of indigenous varieties satisfy the requirements for protecting national biodiversity and intellectual property.
Headnote:(A) Convention on Biological Diversity - Patents Act - Proposed Biodiversity Act, Geographical Indicators Act, and Plant Varieties and Farmers Right Protection Bill - Protection of biodiversity and challenge to foreign patenting of indigenous rice variety - Petitioners sought directions to protect biodiversity and challenge the grant of patent for a specific rice variety in foreign forums - Government submitted that legislation for biodiversity and geographical indicators is being finalized, and a bill for plant varieties and farmers' rights is ready for introduction - Steps are also being taken to amend the Patents Act and challenge the foreign patent through legal experts - Petitioners expressed satisfaction with the government's commitment. (Paras 1-3)
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed seeking a mandamus to protect the biodiversity of the country in accordance with international conventions and to challenge the patenting of an indigenous rice variety in foreign patent offices and dispute settlement bodies.
Findings of Court:
The government is actively taking steps to protect national interests by drafting legislation on biodiversity, geographical indicators, and plant varieties, while also pursuing legal challenges against the foreign patent.
Issues: Whether the government had taken sufficient steps to protect the country's biodiversity and challenge the patenting of an indigenous rice variety in foreign jurisdictions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the purpose of the petition was served once the government committed to implementing legislative frameworks and taking legal action to protect national biodiversity and intellectual property rights.
Result: Writ petition disposed of as settled.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners sought biodiversity protection and patent challenges; Government contended that relevant legislation was being finalized and legal steps to challenge patents were underway. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 7 )
3. The court observed that the government was actively drafting biodiversity and geographical indicators legislation and engaging experts to challenge foreign patents. (Para 2 , 3 , 6 , 7 )
4. A writ petition may be disposed of as settled when the government takes substantive legislative and executive actions to address the petitioners' grievances. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Writ petition disposed of as settled. (Para 5 )
6. Can a writ petition be disposed of based on government assurances of legislative action?
Yes, if the government demonstrates it is taking necessary legislative and executive steps to address the grievances raised, the court may consider the purpose of the petition served and dispose of it as settled. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. What mechanisms can a state use to protect biodiversity and traditional knowledge from foreign patenting?
A state may protect biodiversity and traditional knowledge by enacting specialized legislation, such as biodiversity and geographical indicators acts, and challenging the grant of patents in international patent offices or dispute settlement bodies. (Para 1 , 3 , 7 )
ORDER
1. Through this writ petition, the petitioners have brought to the notice of this Court certain facts and circumstances and pleaded the need to protect the biodiversity of the country and also sought a direction to the Union of India to challenge the patenting of "Basmati rice" in appropriate forums. The following prayers are made in the writ petition:
The petitioners, therefore, pray that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Honble Court may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or the directions of like nature to the respondents to:
(i) take action to protect the biodiversity of our country in conformity with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and such other Conventions for protection of the biodiversity;
(ii) challenge the patenting of Basmati rice, if required, in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and/or before the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) created under the World Trade Organisation (WTO)"
2. On 17-4-1998, this Court directed that a copy of the writ petition be served on the learned Attorney General of India, who was requested to examine the matter and inform the Court of the steps which the Government of India proposed to take in the matter. On 13-7-] 998, thc learned Attorney General was present in response to the notice and submitted that a draft outline of the proposed biodiversity legislation had been circulated and comments had also been received from various quarters. It was also submitted by the learned Attorney General that insofar as the patent of "Basmati rice" is concerned, the Government of India had already taken various steps in the matter to challenge the grant of patent. At the request of the learned Attorney General, we had adjourned the matter for four months.
3. On the matter coming up before us today, learned Attorney General submits that after taking all aspects into consideration and inviting suggestions, two legislations -_ "the Biodiversity Act " and "the Geographical Indicators Act " are in the process of finalisation for being introduced in Parliament. It is further stated that a Bill titled "Plant Varieties and Farmers Right Protection Bill" has already been finalised and is likely to be introduced in Parliament during the winter session. According to the learned Attorney General, the various steps required for the amendment of the Patents Act are also under consideration of the Government, The learned Attorney General submits that the Government of India is fully alive to the situation and its gravity and is taking all necessary steps to protect the interest of the nation.
4. In view of the statement made by the learned Attorney General, Ms Indira Jaising, learned counsel for the petitioners, rightly submits that the purpose for which the petitioners had moved this Court has been served by activising the Government to take appropriate steps and nothing more at this stage is required to be considered insofar as the writ petition is concerned and that the same may be disposed of as settled.
5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as settled and consigned to record.
6. Learned Attorney General is present in response to the notice issued by this Court. It is submitted by him that a draft outline of the proposed biodiversity legislation has been circulated and comments have been received. It is submitted that comments have also been received from Petitioner I and that when the legislation is drafted, those comments shall be taken note of and given due consideration.
7. Mr Sorabjee further points out that insofar as the patent of "Basmati rice" is concerned, the Government of India has already taken steps to engage legal experts to re-examine the grant of patent in America and the Government of India shall take all possible steps to protect the national interest and rights of its people. It is submitted that some more legislations are also being contemplated to deal with various situations arising therefrom.
8. In view of the statemen
