Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain PIL By Patent Officers Welfare Association Seeking CBI Probe Into Alleged IP Data Breach
AIWOPA had alleged that Kaizen Institute, a private consultancy firm, was granted unauthorized access to unpublished patent and trademark data without official sanction.
The Supreme Court has refused to entertain a writ petition filed by the All India Patent Officers’ Welfare Association (AIPOWA) under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking a court-monitored investigation and a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the alleged unauthorized access and leakage of unpublished patent and trademark data to Kaizen Institute, a private consultancy firm.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, “We are not inclined to entertain the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It would, however, be open to the petitioner, All India Patent Officers Welfare Association (AIPOWA), to approach the appropriate High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court clarified, “We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the assertions made in the present writ petition or the question as to whether or not the writ petition should be entertained by the High Court.”
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul appeared for AIPOWA.
The writ petition filed by AIPOWA had sought directions for a CBI investigation into what the petitioner described as, “unauthorized access and leakage of sensitive and unpublished patent and trademark data from the Indian Intellectual Property Offices (IPO) to Kaizen Institute, a private multinational consultancy firm.”
It was further alleged in the petition that “This access, granted without any formal work order, approval from the administrative ministry (DPIIT), or adherence to legal safeguards, was allegedly facilitated by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM). Shockingly, similar access was officially denied to a senior government officer, while Kaizen was allowed to operate within IPO premises on the basis of internal emails that misrepresented their association with the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and the Capacity Building Commission (CBC)."
The petition stated that this access violated provisions of the Patents Act, 1970 including Sections 11A, 35, 40, 42, 67(3), 69(4) proviso, 73(1), 74(1), 76, 118, 143 and 144, as well as Sections 6, 36C, 36E(1) and 148(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
It was further stated, “The Office of CGPDTM is a subordinate office and has no authority to enter into such agreements without prior and express approval from its administrative Ministry i.e., Ministry of Commerce & Industry.”
The petition alleged that Kaizen's engagement was executed without an open competitive bidding process or adherence to public procurement norms, thereby clearly violating principles of transparency, financial propriety, and administrative accountability. " Furthermore, the engagement of Kaizen was executed without any open competitive bidding process or adherence to public procurement norms. This decision to award sensitive work on a nomination basis, without giving other qualified entities an opportunity to participate, constitutes a clear violation of principles of transparency, financial propriety, and administrative accountability. The arbitrary and opaque manner in which this engagement was handled raises serious concerns about undue favoritism, conflict of interest, and potential misuse of office", it added.
AIPOWA further referred to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed between CGPDTM, the Capacity Building Commission (CBC), and the Centre for Effective Governance of Indian States (CEGIS), and pointed to a clause that stated, “CBC shall facilitate coordination with the Kaizen team on process improvement for CGPDTM.”
In its petition, AIPOWA sought judicial directions for a court-monitored investigation, cancellation of the said MoU, and prosecution of responsible individuals under relevant provisions of Indian law and international treaties such as the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and Madrid Protocol.
The Court dismissed the writ petition as not entertained and granted liberty to the AIPOWA to seek appropriate remedies before the High Court.
Cause Title: All India Patent Officers Welfare Association (AIPOWA) v. Union of India (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 414/2025)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Neeraj Krishan Kaul; AOR Varun Mishra; Advocates Vikrant Yadav, Vinod Kumar, Naima Bee, Gyanant Kumar Singh, Varun Tyagi, Ira Mahajan