Patent Competence?


We’ve had some very provocative posts on the qualifications necessary for patent practice in India. While some thought that a science/technical degree was an absolute must, others disagreed. A lot of these different view points hinged on the kind of patent practice that one was speaking about: patent drafting/prosecution vs patent litigation/advisory. Most appeared to agree that for patent drafting and prosecution, a science/technical degree was a must. However, here again, an issue was raised: can a software engineer draft and prosecute a pharma application? Some argue that the market will solve this problem as a pharmaceutical company is not likely to engage the services of a software engineer to draft its patent? But could this same logic be extended to those folks with no technical degree at all i.e. that even if lawyers with no technical degree were authorised to draft patent applications, the market would ensure that no clients approach them?

These are all interesting issues with no immediate answers. However, what of patent officials at the IPO? What kind of qualifications ought they to have? Only a science/technical degree? Or a law degree as well? Right now, the only qualification appears to be a technical degree. And an interview. Apparently, this is set to change next year, as prospective entrants to the Indian patent office (IPO) would need to write an exam as well. And the exam will be framed and conducted by CSIR (India’s largest public funded patentee).

I’m not sure what form the CSIR exam would take. But one question that I wish to raise for now: shouldn’t prospective entrants to the Indian Patent Office (IPO) be subjected to the patent agent exam as well? Should they not know the Patents Act and Rules prior to be being appointed?

Another serious issue that needs to be debated:

Should prospective entrants to the IPO have a law degree? Or is it enough if they have some basic idea of the law (tested through the patent agent exam) ….perhaps they could be trained on other aspects of the law subsequent to their appointment? Here again, does the Indian patent agent exam test on principles of administrative law (audi alteram partem etc) that patent officials need to be conversant with?

Prashant has forcefully argued that since patent opposition disputes represent a “judicial” function for the most part, one must ensure that Controllers deciding such disputes have legal competence, and more importantly, that the process is sufficiently free of ‘executive” (read “government”) interference.

But does not the ordinary process of a patent grant (sans an opposition) qualify as a quasi judicial function? In other words, the grant of a patent can often be said to constitute a mixed question of law and fact (the facts often turning on scientific/technical issues). In fact, courts have time and again stressed that “obviousness”, the central tenet of patent law is really an issue of “law”, predicated on underlying facts. If this be the case, the ordinary controller deciding an application (even in the absence of any oppositions) is really deciding an issue of law.

However, there is no requirement under the Patents Act that such officials have a law degree. Or no requirement that, at the very least, such an official be trained in the law subsequent to his/her appointment.

Lastly, on the issue of “judicial” independence from the executive, and the need to keep patent oppositions free from “executive” influence referred to earlier, one might extend the same logic to the ordinary grant process that does not involve any oppositions. How does one ensure that a government lab such as CSIR (one of India’s largest patentees) not get favourable treatment from a patent office that is, for the most part, under the control and direction of the government? We need more constitutional lawyers to step into the arena and help us with these issues.

Shamnad Basheer

Shamnad Basheer

Prof. (Dr.) Shamnad Basheer founded SpicyIP in 2005. He's also the Founder of IDIA, a project to train underprivileged students for admissions to the leading law schools. He served for two years as an expert on the IP global advisory council (GAC) of the World Economic Forum (WEF). In 2015, he received the Infosys Prize in Humanities in 2015 for his work on legal education and on democratising the discourse around intellectual property law and policy. The jury was headed by Nobel laureate, Prof. Amartya Sen. Professional History: After graduating from the NLS, Bangalore Prof. Basheer joined Anand and Anand, one of India’s leading IP firms. He went on to head their telecommunication and technology practice and was rated by the IFLR as a leading technology lawyer. He left for the University of Oxford to pursue post-graduate studies, completing the BCL, MPhil and DPhil as a Wellcome Trust scholar. His first academic appointment was at the George Washington University Law School, where he served as the Frank H Marks Visiting Associate Professor of IP Law. He then relocated to India in 2008 to take up the MHRD Chaired Professorship in IP Law at WB NUJS, a leading Indian law school. Later, he was the Honorary Research Chair of IP Law at Nirma University and also a visiting professor of law at the National Law School (NLS), Bangalore. Prof. Basheer has published widely and his articles have won awards, including those instituted by ATRIP, the Stanford Technology Law Review and CREATe. He was consulted widely by the government, industry, international organisations and civil society on a variety of IP issues. He also served on several government committees.

18 comments.

  1. AvatarAnonymous

    The post itself was not provocative but Prashant’s remarks and attitude in the comments section were.

    AS regards competence, IPO is not the only office that faces this kind of a problem. It is there at the USPTO, EPO, JPO, SIPO, Canadian and the KIPO.
    Each jurisdiction has its own requirement. The US, EPO require a science background but the Canadian patent office does not.

    The Canadian exam is however, much more rigorous and takes about 6-12 months to administer and complete.

    A patent agent has a duty to represent the client and get the broadest reasonable claims for her client. If there is no technical background, it is questionable whether a patent agent can even understand the term ‘broadest.’

    Established patent agents have a good amount of experience in one field that helps in another field. Even then, one has to expend a large amount of time studying the technology rather than writing the application.

    There is a separate training program at the USPTO to teach new examiners (they do not give the exam for the patent agents, but they are rigorously taught/trained upon 37 CFR. This set of rules is comprehensive.
    The current need is that our patent office rules need to be updated and explained in detail to reflect the procedures. How else would one ensure uniformity in the working of examiners, controllers.

    Reply
  2. AvatarPrashant Reddy

    @Anon:

    I take objection to your comment about my remarks and attitude. You are hardly in a position to pass such comments hiding behind the veil of anonymity. For all I know you maybe the same anon who abused me in the last post.

    I do not understand why you insist on drawing analogies to foreign practices like the USPTO. The fundamental difference between the USPTO and the Indian Patent Office is the fact that the IPO is listening to post-grant oppositions in an adversarial set-up. The USPTO has no such procedure. The EPO does allow ‘European Patent Attorneys’ to appear before opposition boards but then again the procedure to become a European Patent Attorney is much more rigorous. As you may know it requires mandatory training under a professional patent attorney.

    If the scope of practice before the Indian patent office was limited to only patent prosecution then in that case a science degree would suffice although I still think it is unnecessary. However when you have a post-grant opposition mechanism which is the equivalent of ‘litigation’ then in that case it is only logical to insist on even a law degree as a qualification to appear before the Controller. Please bear in mind that my initial post was on the litigation aspect. As is obvious from the procedural and evidentiary mistakes that are happening before the Patent Office, the law component of the Patent Agent Examination is completely inadequate.

    A simpler option, in my opinion, would be to include some compulsory legal subjects as a part of the qualifying examination to become a patent agent. For e.g. the Law of Evidence, Statutory Interpretation, constitutional law , legal methods etc.

    Regards,
    Prashant

    Reply
  3. AvatarAnonymous

    Dear Prashant,

    I did not abuse you last time nor this time and I have no intention of doing so. You are an excellent blogger but it was unfortunate that the discussion in the post went in a tangential direction.

    I took issue with your blanket statement that, science degree for exam is illogical.

    It is necessary to draw analogies from foreign courts because patents do not exist only in India. They exist in many jurisdictions across the world.

    Each country has a different approach and these practices may give pointers to practitioners here. Remember that while litigating in India, one thing each litigator looks for is the file history in the US and the EP.

    If one can look to a different jurisdiction for the file history, then one can also look to the same jurisdiction for procedural help.

    IT is in this regard that I was saying that the IPO needs to evolve
    detailed procedures. These may be based on 37 CFR and/or the EP practice.

    There is no need to invent the wheel. AS an FYI, the IPO uses the same e-filing mechanism provided by WIPO. I am not saying that the entire CFR can be used but those parts that can be used directly should be used. An example of this may be procedures for inventorship, office interviews with examiner, form of an office action etc.

    And I believe that you are wrong about the adversarial procedure at the USPTO. 3rd party opposition is expressly provided for in the USPTO rules and there is at least one decision from the US BPAI every week in 3rd party opposition proceedings.

    The patent office has got no right to ask a question about legal issues (this is domain of Bar Council) but it has got all the right to ask issues pertaining to patents. Therefore, it is high time that the IPO evolve detailed procedural rules.

    Prashant not every anonymous commentator is out to deliberately criticize you. I love your posts because evidently, I take keen interest and keep posting (decent) comments on your posts. Therefore, it is my humble request to you-to please take the comments in the right spirit.

    Regards,
    Anonymouse

    Reply
  4. AvatarShamnad Basheer

    Dear Prashant,

    You raise a very valid point about having to test patent agents on foundational legal subjects—since a large part of patent prosecution itself will involve “legal” aspects. And better that we permit patent agents to engage more openly with legal issues (and issue patent infringement and clearance opinions etc) after testing them on the law, rather than trying to draw this artificial “technical” vs “legal” competence issue. For patent practice (at all levels) really involves a mix of both these aspects. If a patent agent has to draft a strong claim, he/she must be aware of claim construction decisions that have issued from courts….and to properly assess the scope and relevance of such judicial decisions, they must be well versed in the role of precedents, the hierrarchy of courts, harmoniously interpreting statutes, the case law method etc…in short, a patent agent must have some basic sense of the law and must be trained in legal method and in the logic of the law. Merely asking them questions on the Indian patents act is not sufficient.

    However, is it necessary that they have a law degree? I think not. I’ve been speaking with some of the folks involved with the conduct of the Bar Exam this year and have been insisting that they merely test on “foundational” legal subjects and on legal reasoning, rather than an information guzzling and vomiting test on 20 different legal subjects. Once a good enough bar exam that tests on 4-5 foundational tests and legal logic is evolved, we have an appropriate filter. Much like Japan, we can have anyone take the exam and not just folks with a law degree. A law degree and a rigorous legal education is certainly likely to place such candidates at a considerable advantage over others in passing this exam…but should others without a law degree pass this exam, that much more credit to them!

    However, while evolving guidelines for all of this, we also need to bear in mind that we have an undersupply problem when it comes to patent agents in India. Having very rigorous entry level criteria may limit our supply even further…and prove detrimental.

    The above logic ought to apply for patent agent qualifications too….our only filter ought to be a rigorous exam that tests on patent law, foundational legal subjects, basics of patent drafting and ability to read and interpret a patent document. A technical/science person is able to appreciate technology better and is more likely to score better on the part requiring patent document assessment. In fact, I expected some of the commentators to raise this issue. Although a chemistry graduate might not do justice to an application dealing with an anti-gravity invention, the logic of science that is embedded within the educational DNA of such a candidate might make them better placed to appreciate another area of science, as opposed to a pure lawyer with no science background at all. So there just might be some rationale for insisting on a basic science degree for all patent agents. However, as I mentioned earlier, I think the only filter should be that of the “exam”. And after that market forces….

    Reply
  5. AvatarPrashant Reddy

    Dear Anonymouse,

    Thank you for your gracious comment.

    We got a lot of abusive comments on the last post which we did not publish. Given the fact that all of you appear as Anonymouse it makes it impossible to distinguish between different commentators.

    It would be very helpful if you could create either a Gmail ID or an ‘Open ID’ so as to ensure that you can continue to comment anonymously without having your identity stolen by another anonymous commentator.

    I agree with your argument that a science degree maybe necessary for patent agent. My only point of dissent is that if you are making the science degree a statutory requirement then in that case it should be taken to its logical end failing which the provision is open to a constitutional challenge.

    There should be two additional caveats:

    Firstly it should be necessary to hold a science degree in a patentable subject matter i.e. a degree in zoological sciences cannot qualify you as a patent agent. I believe this is a USPTO requirement.

    Secondly it should be necessary to ensure that patent agents sign off only those applications in which they have a domain specialization.

    I agree with you that we can learn from other jurisdictions but at the same time we need to tailor those requirements to our laws. The BPAI is an appeals body which is different from the USPTO. The only third party procedure before the USPTO is ‘re-examinations’ which is not in the same adversarial mode as post-grant oppositions.

    Post-grant oppositions, in my opinion, are a whole new ball game. They are the equivalent of litigation that happens before Courts. If we want our patent agents to be equipped to ensure ‘justice’ for their clients, it will be necessary to test them on other facets of the law such as evidence etc. To that extent the qualifying criteria for the patent agent exam can be adequately redesigned.

    Warm Regards,
    Prashant

    Reply
  6. AvatarAnonymous

    Youngsters please don’t join patent office as examiner….this office will take your dreams and will throw you in the darkness of big zero….no promotion ..no salary hike ….nothing….

    Reply
  7. AvatarAnonymous

    CSIR … and patenting… that’s like our leaders spending money and ‘really’ achieving social upliftment.

    CSIR is the biggest joke in decent patenting/ making things work for INDIANS… the bureaucratic mockery of science and its ‘great scientists’ is evident from how MUCH help they have given to Indians… any drug for Indians / any solution to Indian problems like water resistant (or vice versa) crops?

    NOT Anonymouse

    Reply
  8. AvatarAnonymous

    HI All,
    I may not be a big commentor like all of you. But i am surprised to observe one thing-all of you have not commented on a vital point -How CSIR is going to be the recruiting agency – in the sense dealing with exams and other things – when they themselves are the applicant – a big applicant-who doesn’t have any tension for application money- like us.This is a big mockery of the system and against basic principles of law.

    A few days back while have conversation with one officer who do not wants to be identified, I came to know now outside agencies are also appointed whimsically to carry out the Patent Agent examination.Is the department has now become so incompetent to carry out Patent Agent examination on their own?

    May be all of you can give highlight on the issue- but please do it impartially.

    Reply
  9. AvatarAnonymous

    Dear Mr Baseer,
    With respect i duly don’t agree with you in certain points.Let me cite one example if you see the Indian Administrative Services, then it is not mandatory for aspirants to come up and appear in the examination with fixed sort of qualification requirement.The examination is open to graduates and they can choose subjects as per their wishes and the required quality to drive the nation is being checked in interview and selection is done accordingly and they are trained after wards how to run the nation for the last so many decades and the country is running.
    Thats why a billion dollar budget makers in this country doesn’t needs an MBA as such where his/her counterpart needs that to enter the corporate world.

    Yes there are few exceptions , there are people who after getting power try to misuse it , become dictators and indulge in high end corruption.

    But still i would say the people when properly trained and has hand on experience dealing things in practical world they are the most sought after professional in this world.
    So the way of selection in Government jobs especially for a quasijudicial authority is little separate what we think from outside.

    What we need more focus is that in India the Examiners are not properly trained in their initial career i.e.only 15-20 days in one institute in Nagpur and never being put on probation under any Director of Patents and also send to foreign training after 4-5 years , that too i heard that there are lot of lobbying -who will go to attend the training programmes.It is heard that in majority of cases the organization head and some clerks under the bureaucracy enjoyes such training treated as foreign trips.Yes the resource persons of IPO needs more exposure in the outside world and frequent exposure to symposiums and training progammes , collaboration programmes abroad.
    But at this moment what is utmost important is that the training programme initially should be very exhaustive. In this the we can cite the training programme as being conducted in Mushourie for selected IAS/IPS/IRS and should be applied accordingly for the Examiners e.g. More Judges and judicial members, constitutional authorities should be called to deliver necessary guidance on basic principles of law and other related issues.Here the Indian IPO again makes a blunder by calling Patent Attorneys to deliver presentations which is not called for at beginning of their career and to avoid unncessary psychological pressure on the future custodians of the Patent System .They may be called in various symposiums and discussions and debates so that both sides can hear each others views.
    Further there should be continuous refresher programmes and discussion , symposiums for the Directors of Patents.

    But still Thanks and regards for higlighting a burning issue Mr Basheer.

    Sincerely Yours
    A Well Wisher of Indian IP System.

    Reply
  10. AvatarAnonymous

    Dear Mr Baseer,
    With respect i duly don’t agree with you in certain points.Let me cite one example if you see the Indian Administrative Services, then it is not mandatory for aspirants to come up and appear in the examination with fixed sort of qualification requirement.The examination is open to graduates and they can choose subjects as per their wishes and the required quality to drive the nation is being checked in interview and selection is done accordingly and they are trained after wards how to run the nation for the last so many decades and the country is running.Thats why a billion dollar budget makers in this country doesn’t needs an MBA as such where his/her counterpart needs that to enter the corporate world.

    Yes there are few exceptions , there are people who after getting power try to misuse it , become dictators and indulge in high end corruption.But still i would say the people when properly trained and has hand on experience dealing things in practical world they are the most sought after professional in this world.So the way of selection in Government jobs especially for a quasijudicial authority is little separate what we think from outside.What we need more focus is that in India the Examiners are not properly trained in their initial career i.e.only 15-20 days in one institute in Nagpur and never being put on probation under any Director of Patents and also send to foreign training after 4-5 years , that too i heard that there are lot of lobbying -who will go to attend the training programmes.It is heard that in majority of cases the organization head and some clerks under the bureaucracy enjoyes such training treated as foreign trips.Yes the resource persons of IPO needs more exposure in the outside world and frequent exposure to symposiums and training progammes , collaboration programmes abroad.
    But at this moment what is utmost important is that the training programme initially should be very exhaustive. In this the we can cite the training programme as being conducted in Mushourie for selected IAS/IPS/IRS and should be applied accordingly for the Examiners e.g. More Judges and judicial members, constitutional authorities should be called to deliver necessary guidance on basic principles of law and other related issues.Here the Indian IPO again makes a blunder by calling Patent Attorneys to deliver presentations which is not called for at beginning of their career and to avoid unncessary psychological pressure on the future custodians of the Patent System .They may be called in various symposiums and discussions and debates so that both sides can hear each others views.
    Further there should be continuous refresher programmes and discussion , symposiums for the Directors of Patents.
    But still Thanks and regards for higlighting a burning issue Mr Basheer.
    Sincerely Yours
    A Well Wisher of Indian IP System.

    Reply
  11. AvatarAnonymous

    Dear Mr Baseer,
    I duly don’t agree with you in certain points. If you see the Indian Administrative Services, then it is not mandatory for aspirants to come up and appear in the examination with fixed sort of requirement. The examination is open to graduates and they can choose subjects as per their wishes and the required quality to drive the nation is being checked in interview and selection is done accordingly and they are trained after wards how to run the nation for the last so many decades and the country is running.
    Thats why a billion dollar budget makers in this country doesn’t needs a MBA as such where his/her counterpart needs that to enter the corporate world.
    Yes there are few exceptions , there are people who after getting power try to misuse it , become dictators and indulge in high end corruption.
    Hence people when properly trained and has hand on experience dealing things in practical world are the most sought after professional in this world.
    So the way of selection in Government jobs especially for a quasijudicial authority is little separate what we think from outside.
    What we need more focus is that in India the Examiners are not properly trained in their initial career i.e.only 15-20 days in one institute in Nagpur and never being put on probation under any Director of Patents and also send to foreign training after 4-5 years , that too i heard that there are lot of lobbying -who will go to attend the training programmes.It is heard that in majority of cases the organization head and some clerks under the bureaucracy enjoyes such training treated as foreign trips.Yes the resource persons of IPO needs more exposure in the outside world and frequent exposure to symposiums and training progammes , collaboration programmes abroad.
    But at this moment what is utmost important is that the training programme initially should be very exhaustive. In this the we can cite the training programme as being conducted in Mushourie for selected IAS/IPS/IRS and should be applied accordingly for the Examiners e.g. More Judges and judicial members, constitutional authorities should be called to deliver necessary guidance on basic principles of law and other related issues.Here the Indian IPO again makes a blunder by calling Patent Attorneys to deliver presentations which is not called for at beginning of their career and to avoid unncessary psychological pressure on the future custodians of the Patent System .They may be called in various symposiums and discussions and debates so that both sides can hear each others views.
    Further there should be continuous refresher programmes and discussion , symposiums for the Directors of Patents.
    But still Thanks and regards for highlighting a burning issue Mr Basheer.
    Sincerely Yours
    A Well Wisher of Indian IP System.

    Reply
  12. AvatarAnonymous

    Second part- as comment cannot be uploaded once at a time—

    But at this moment what is utmost important is that the training programme initially should be very exhaustive. In this the we can cite the training programme as being conducted in Mushourie for selected IAS/IPS/IRS and should be applied accordingly for the Examiners e.g. More Judges and judicial members, constitutional authorities should be called to deliver necessary guidance on basic principles of law and other related issues.Here the Indian IPO again makes a blunder by calling Patent Attorneys to deliver presentations which is not called for at beginning of their career and to avoid unncessary psychological pressure on the future custodians of the Patent System .They may be called in various symposiums and discussions and debates so that both sides can hear each others views.
    Further there should be continuous refresher programmes and discussion , symposiums for the Directors of Patents.

    Sincerely Yours
    A Well Wisher of Indian IP System.

    Reply
  13. AvatarAliasgar Dholkawala

    Dear Prashant,

    I would like to make a comment on your last post with regard to domain specialization.

    Can you stop any lawyer who has gained specialization in the field of IP law, from appearing in matter related to any other law??? The answer is no, therefore it makes absolutely no sense to restrict patent agents sign off only those applications in which they have domain specialization.

    Being a lawyer with a technical background, i have been through both the systems. As a lawyer, what you study in a law school is not specialization but the basic principles of law and its interpretation. Your specialization comes only with practice in a particular domain. Similarly, a science graduate also learns the basic principle of physics, chemistry and biology in the initial years on which ultimately he masters his specialization.

    If you have your basics right, specialization is only a matter of research and updation of you knowledge base and experience. Whether a client engages a patent agent having domain specialization in biology to work on software patents, or an IP lawyer to fight a criminal case, is entirely the client’s prerogative.

    Be it Patent prosecution or litigation, the bottom line is, you are handicapped if you lack either technical or legal competence to deal with the patent in question. I have seen patent agents with technical degree falter gravely on legal principles jeopardizing their client’s interest as well as legal professional who could not do justice to their case because they could not excel on the technical front.

    A person having technical background is already competent enough to deal with the technical issues. It therefore makes sense to make them go through rigorous training in legal principles as well as basic principles of novelty and inventive step before they are allowed to practice as patent agents.

    Regards,
    Aliasgar Dholkawala

    Reply
  14. AvatarAnonymous

    Referring to one of anonymous’ reply above, I agree that CSIR is one of the applicants in the eye of the Indian Patent Office (IPO). Hence, providing them to conduct patent exam, preparing question papers for the exam or seeking such assistance might be prejudicial to some or many.

    Secondly, whether CSIR is capable enough to conduct such a responsible job.

    Reply
  15. AvatarD.Bheemeswar

    Patent writing is a professional skill that has to come by learning how to combine science and Technology past and present,and also some knowledge of legal formalities with management Back ground.

    Reply
  16. Avatardebabrata

    At times I miss on a few comments due to inadequacy of time, but I made out time this weekend to read all the posts and comments relating to the above topic. It is indeed an insightful debate among the Learned (a humble attempt to include both lawyers and science guys) as to what should be the ideal profile of a Patent Practitioner in the Indian scenario.

    As I broadly summed up, the issues are as follows:

    1. ideal patent competence ?
    2. patent competence of an officer at IPO ?
    3. Constitutionality of the proceedings before the IPO ?

    My first two issues might be questioned as required to be necessarily united, but I do differ on such proposition. I would like to support such view with my argument in the ongoing comment. I guess we have been a bit over critical in our analysis and in trying to find an ideality we have proposed means which cannot be implemented in reality. The debate includes mostly criticism on the legal aspects of the procedural formalities at the IPO. But again I guess the debate has nicely summed up as to what constitutes the ideal patent competence. The requirement as to basic legal and science knowhow has been acknowledged by all. (I stress on the word basic) The bigger has always been the better but the minimum standard has not rightly been questioned. Further you can always improve on your knowledge if you know the basics but one cannot read an english line without knowing the alphabets. So I guess there should not be a tug-of-war among the science and law turf but everybody should be capable in their own particular domain as patent drafters, attorneys and those in litigation. The science-law combination influences in an inversely proportional manner among the profiles wherein the drafters should possess more scientific knowledge and ligitators that of law but everybody nonetheless should possess the minimum standard.

    2. Now coming to patent competence of an officer at IPO, we cannot classify the same under any category of the above, and further we cannot expect to have an ideal patent competence of the same. But again the minimum standard can always be argued upon. We have two different work profiles at the IPO concerned with the grant of patent – the Examiners and the Controllers. . In my opinion the necessity of knowing the basic legal principles and procedures is more among the Controller than that the Examiner, who is concerned only with the examination of the applicant’s patent documents in accordance with the Patent Act. It is not necessitated for him to know the legal principles of evidence and examination required during times of opposition. Subsequently I agree the Controller should possess legal knowledge for conducting better opposition proceedings. As a solution I feel no entry level bar should be placed at the IPO for legal screening of prospective examiners. But the examiners should only be promoted to Controllers only after completion of suitable legal training required to handle the opposition proceedings before the IPO. Lastly in order to support my argument that an ideal patent competence possessing all the necessary attributes cannot be expected of an officer at IPO is simply because a person with such profile would not volunteer to work at the IPO looking at the challenges, profile, perks etc (one can differ but instances are in exception)

    3. On the third issue I do not want to comment on anything but I feel its better to have the views of a person well versed in Constitutional aspects.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.