The Supreme Court has declined to admit a writ petition filed by the All India Patent Officers’ Welfare Association (AIPOWA), which sought a court-monitored investigation and a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into alleged unauthorized access and data leakage involving sensitive patent and trademark information.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar refused to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, the Court allowed AIPOWA the liberty to approach the appropriate High Court under Article 226 for further remedies. The Court made it clear that it had not offered any opinion on the merits of the allegations or whether the petition should be admitted by the High Court.
The petition alleged that confidential data from the Indian Intellectual Property Offices (IPO) was improperly accessed and shared with Kaizen Institute, a private multinational consultancy, without following due legal and administrative procedures. According to AIPOWA, this access was facilitated by officials in the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) despite a lack of formal approval from the DPIIT.
The association claimed that Kaizen was allowed to operate within IPO premises based solely on internal email communications, which allegedly misrepresented its links to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Capacity Building Commission (CBC). In contrast, similar access was reportedly denied to a senior government officer.
The petition further argued that this arrangement breached multiple provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It contended that CGPDTM, being a subordinate office, had no authority to enter into such arrangements without explicit clearance from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
Additionally, AIPOWA criticized the process through which Kaizen was engaged, stating that no competitive bidding took place, violating public procurement rules and principles of transparency and accountability. The petition also highlighted an MoU signed among CGPDTM, the CBC, and the Centre for Effective Governance of Indian States (CEGIS), pointing to a clause that indicated CBC’s role in coordinating with Kaizen for process improvements at CGPDTM.
The petition had urged the Court to nullify the MoU, initiate a CBI investigation, and hold those responsible accountable under Indian laws and international agreements, including the Patent Cooperation Treaty and Madrid Protocol.
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul appeared on behalf of AIPOWA. While the Supreme Court declined to intervene directly, it left the door open for the matter to be taken up by a High Court.