Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 976

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BHARATI DANGRE, MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
Huntington Alloys Corporation – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.2086 of 2021
Decided On : 07-04-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rohan Kadam with Mr.Ishaan Paranjape, Ms.Jasmeet Kaur, Ms.Fatima Ali and Ms.Vinayika Shahi i/b Anand and Naik Co.
For the Respondents : Mr. Anil C. Singh, ASG with Mr. Yashodeep Deshmukh, Mr. Aditya Thakker, Ms. Apurva Gupte, Mr. Adarsh Vyas and Mr. Rutwik Rao i/b Anusha P. Amin

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rohan Kadam, Ishaan Paranjape, Jasmeet Kaur, Fatima Ali, Vinayika Shahi
For the Respondents: Anil C. Singh, Yashodeep Deshmukh, Aditya Thakker, Apurva Gupte, Adarsh Vyas, Rutwik Rao

Administrative authorities must provide detailed, reasoned orders when rejecting patent applications based on statutory prohibitions. Documented reasons ensure transparency, enable effective judicial review, and allow applicants the necessary opportunity to address objections or amend their specifications, thereby upholding the rule of law.

Headnote:(A) Patents Act, 1970 - Section 4 - Atomic Energy Act, 1962 - Section 20 - Patent Application - Rejection - Requirement of Reasoned Order - Principles of Natural Justice - Administrative Law - A patent application cannot be rejected on the ground of atomic energy relevance without providing a reasoned order - Reasons are the “heartbeat” of a judicial or administrative decision - Non-speaking orders hinder the ability of a court to test the correctness of the decision - An applicant is entitled to know the basis of rejection to enable potential amendments or legal recourse. (Paras 4, 9, 15, 17)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Judicial Review - Administrative orders failing to disclose reasons are liable to be set aside - Transparency and accountability are essential components of the rule of law. (Paras 15, 17)

Facts of the case:
A petitioner challenged the rejection of a patent application for an alloy invention. The regulatory authorities rejected the application, citing statutory prohibitions regarding energy research without providing specific justifications in the order of refusal.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that while the government has the authority to refuse patents involving specified energy research, the exercise of such power must be transparent. The absence of specific reasons for the rejection prevented the petitioner from understanding the basis or seeking to amend the application as permitted by law.

Issues: The main issues were whether the refusal of a patent application based on statutory prohibitions requires a reasoned order and whether the absence of such reasons renders the order legally unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A decision that affects legal rights, especially one denying a statutory benefit, must be supported by reasons to ensure transparency and enable judicial review. Failure to provide reasons renders the order arbitrary and requires the authority to reconsider the matter by passing a reasoned order.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned orders set aside; authorities directed to decide the application afresh by passing a reasoned order.

Table of Content
1. procedural context and factual history of the challenged patent application rejection. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. contention regarding jurisdiction and procedural fairness in rejecting patents related to atomic energy. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. statutory construction of the atomic energy act and patents act regarding prohibitions and amendments. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. requirement for reasoned administrative orders to ensure transparency and uphold natural justice. (Para 15 , 16)
5. judicial order mandating a reasoned decision upon reconsideration of the patent application. (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT :

BHARATI DANGRE, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith, by consent.

2. The Petitioner, a Corporation incorporated under the laws of USA, is aggrieved by the order dated 18/11/2020 passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and further order dated 06/04/2021 passed by the Department of Atomic Energy, thereby rejecting the Patent Application of the Petitioner dated 09/11/2010.

3. Heard learned counsel Mr.Rohan Kadam for the Petitioner.

According to Mr.Kadam, the orders passed by the Respondents suffer from lack of jurisdiction, non-application of mind and being unreasoned orders, are liable to be quashed and set aside.

The challenge to the impugned orders is raised in the background facts that on 09/04/2008, the Petitioner filed an National Phase Patent application (PCT/US2009/040019) and it was allotted number IN’4211, which was published under Section 11-A of the Patents Act, 1970 (for short, “Act of 1970”). The Petitioner filed the request for examination of Application on 09/03/2012, but no steps were taken by the Authority under Sections 12 to 14 of the Act of 1970.

On 18/11/2020, the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs, forwarded a communication to the Department of Atomic Energy with respect to the Patent Application and expressed its prima facie view that the Patent cannot be granted to the applicants for the invention under Section 7 of the Act of 1970.

The Application was, therefore, referred to the Department of Atomic Energy under sub-section (6) of Section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 (for short, “Act of 1962”) for directions as to whether the invention is relating to Atomic Energy and whether the said Application should be refused or whether it can be processed.

The aforesaid reference resulted into an order passed on 06/04/2021 by the Department of Atomic Energy, stating thus :-

“I am directed to refer to your Letter No.PO/KOL/Sec-4/EF/19-20(45) dated 18.11.2020 on the above subject and to state that the matter has been carefully reviewed by the Government of India, in the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) with regard to the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 20 of Atomic Energy Act, 1962 read with Section 4 of the Patents Act, 1970. It is concluded that the above invention does relate to Atomic Energy and hence the application be refused.”

4. The above two orders are impugned in the present Writ Petition.

Learned counsel Mr.Kadam, by inviting our attention to the Act of 1962 would submit that Act of 1962 is a statue providing for development, control and use of atomic energy for the welfare of the people in India and for other peaceful purposes and the Act has defined ‘atomic energy’ to mean energy released from atomic nuclei as a result of any process, including the fission and fusion processes. According to him, by virtue of sub-clause (6) of Section 20, it is the Controller of Patents and Designs, who is empowered to refer any application to the Central Government for direction, as to whether the invention is one relating to atomic energy and the direction given by the Central Government is assigned finality. He has also invited our attention to the Act of 1970 and, in specific, Section 4 thereof, which provide that no Patent shall be granted in respect of an invention relating to atomic energy falling within sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act of 1962.

5. In light of the aforesai

Click Here to Read the rest of this document