1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of Writ of Declaration, to declare the amendment introduced to Section 126 of the Patent Act, 1970 by Section 67 (a) of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (Act 15 of 2005) as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.

2. The petitioner, who appeared party-in-person is a practicing Advocate, specialised in Intellectual Property matters. The petitioner submits that his area of practice, includes practicing before the Controller of Patents, preparing all documents, transact all business and discharge such other functions relating to patent, design, copyright and trademark in India and also argue cases relating to intellectual property at various levels of Courts in India, including Tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities like the first respondent herein. The petitioner has further submitted that the introduction of the amendment to Section 126 of the Patents Act, 1970, has curtailed his right to practice, though as per Section 30 of the Advocates Act, he is entitled to practice in all Courts, including the Supreme Court, Tribunals and quasi-judicial authorities. According to him, the impugned amendment has been made against the fundamental rights of the petitioner, guaranteed under the Constitution. Hence, he filed the writ petition, seeking an order to declare the impugned amendment, as illegal, unconstitutional, ultra vires and void.

3. It is an admitted fact that Section 126 of Patents Act (herein after referred to as "the Act"), deals with qualification for registration of patent agents. Section 126 of the Patents Act, prior to the amendment read as follows :

"(1) A person shall be qualified to have his name entered in the register of patent agents if he fulfills the following conditions, namely :-

(a) he is a citizen of India;

(b) he has completed the age of 21 years;

(c) he has obtained a (degree in science, engineering or technology from any University established under law for the time being in force) in the territory of India or possesses such other equivalent qualifications as the Central Government may specify in this behalf, and, in addition-

(i) is an advocate within the meaning of the Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961);

(ii) has passed the qualifying examination prescribed for the purpose; (or)

(iii) has, for a total period of not less than ten years, functioned either as an examiner or discharged the functions of the Controller under section 73 or both, but ceased to hold any such capacity at the time of making the application for registration;

(d) he has paid such fee as may be prescribed.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a person who has been registered as a patent agent before the commencement of the Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 shall be entitled to continue to be, or when required to be re-registered, as a patent agent, on payment of the fees as may be prescribed."

In the said Section 126 (1) (c) (i) of the Act, the portion typed in bold letters herein, that was available prior to the amendment has been deleted by the impugned amendment. According to the writ petitioner, the impugned amendment is against the Constitutional mandate and as such ultra vires the Constitution, under Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21.

4. Mr. SP. Chockalingam, party-in-person submitted that in view of the amendment to Section 126 of Patents Act, the petitioner, though a practicing Advocate cannot register his name and practice as patent agent, in spite of the fact that it was a matter of right to any Advocate to register as patent agent, prior to the impugned amendment. As per Section 127 of the Act, a patent agent is entitled (1) to practice before the Controller of Patents and (2) to prepare all documents, transact all business and discharge such other functions as may be prescribed in connection with any proceeding before the Controller under the Act.

5. The writ petitio