The Delhi High Court, on the recommendations of a two-member judge committee announced the creation of the Intellectual Property Division. The IPD was to act as specialized benches in the high courts and will deal with all original proceedings and appellate proceedings. Previously, a three-tier dispute resolution system for IP matters was in place. The initial one is the registrar of the respective registry, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) being the next, and the courts are at the top. The IPAB, established in 2003, was facing a shortage of technical personnel and the Delhi High Court also criticized the same and held that the Chairman’s post cannot remain vacant.
On account of the failure of the IPAB in ensuring speedy and effective adjudication of IP disputes, it was abolished by the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance 2021. However, this led to the High Courts being additionally burdened with numerous pending IP disputes. The Delhi High Court’s decision to create an Intellectual Property Division in July 2021.
The Supreme Court however in its 2:1 verdict upheld the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 but held as unconstitutional certain provisions related to terms of services of the chairperson, vice-chairperson and other members of tribunals. The apex court struck down the provisions requiring a minimum age for appointment as Chairperson or Members as 50 years and prescribing the tenure of four years saying such conditions are contrary to the principles of separation of powers, independence of the judiciary, rule of law and Article 14 of the Constitution.
The majority verdict further said that security of tenure and conditions of service are recognised as core components of independence of the judiciary, which can be sustained only when the incumbents are assured of fair and reasonable conditions of service, which include adequate remuneration and security of tenure.
Image Source I Love Making Money
About The Author
