31. There can be no two opinions about the Parliament’s wisdom in creating new rights for breeders, farmers and those who by their effort developed new varieties or later claim to have developed extant varieties. That such unique protection is sui generis and is also distinguishable from other known kinds of intellectual property, patent designs, copyrights and trademarks is also inarguable. But this uniqueness is irrelevant for the consideration of the challenge by the petitioners to the impugned provisions. The Union, the interveners and the third respondent speak in unison about India evolving her true obligations under Article 13 of the UPOV and also the public policy underlying the main provision, i.e. as enabling the authority to make interim orders in the applications which are pending. To examine these, it would be essential first to closely analyze the provision and thereafter consider whether indeed it confers unguided or uncanalized power and if it does, can it be ever in the manner suggested.

32. Principles governing statutory interpretation do not permit use of terms defined in one enactment, to construe identical, but undefined terms in another enactment; therefore, th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document