A recent decision of the Central Information Commission under the Right to Information Act (and no, this was not drafted by people at SpicyIP!) has asked the Intellectual Property Office (IPO), Kolkata, to respond to a request for basic clarifications about the patents system in India. You can read the decision here. Ordinarily, this would have been dismissed as being fairly inconsequential and peripheral to discussions on SpicyIP, but on second glance, it raises some relevant questions about IP awareness and information dissemination in India. (Image from here). A quick outline of the facts: The RTI application originated in Dehradun, the capital of the north Indian state of Uttarakhand about a year ago, in July 2010, and was addressed to the National Council of Science Museums (NCSM), Kolkata, seeking the following information:
1. Which invention/ discovery/ idea/ solutions can be patented?
2. What are the different procedures to be followed for getting a patent?
3. What is the complete procedure for obtaining a patent?
4. Where is this facility available in India?
5. How is membership of the Patent Office obtained?
The NCSM (which has a fancy-ish site, by the way), not being the concerned authority in this case, appropriately forwarded the application to the IPO Kolkata. The IPO then fell silent. The Central Information Commission, upon being told that the application had not been responded to, has rapped the IPO on its knuckles in this order, asking them to provide answers to the questionnaire by August 5, 2011.
Two issues stare one in the face here: first, is the actual use or misuse (as you will) of the RTI Act — a cursory read of the questionnaire, to anyone familiar with IP or even law, generally, would reveal that this information is in the public domain already, and is readily and easily available.
Second, and more critically, that such a questionnaire should have emerged in the first place highlights the desperate need to ramp up the information dissemination efforts of the IPO in India. The questionnaire came from Dehradun, a relatively literate and wealthy state capital in the country – which does not help justify an argument for lack of resources. Despite this, the questionnaire was sent to the wrong agency (science museum? intellectual property? – okay, one can forcibly create a distant association, but still…). Finally, of course, the IPO has remained silent about it, when all they needed to do, surely, was to direct the applicant to its website, and provide the appropriate information.
The IPO has been rewarded in the past for having one of the best government websites, but there appears to be still a long way to go before their awareness initiatives seep in to the places where there is demand for information. Having been involved in occasional programmes of the IPO myself, I know that there are attempts being made to communicate with non-metropolitan areas in the country. But this application is evidence that these efforts have been insufficient. Time perhaps for the IPO to roll up its sleeves and expand its information networks? There’s a whole lot of India still waiting.
Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Latin for “ignorance of the law does not excuse” or “ignorance of the law excuses no one”) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.
Anon – no issues with the maxim at all. In this context, please also note my first point, i.e., reference to mis/use of the Act to obtain information that is already in the public domain.
My larger point is something else: the IPO, through the National Institute for IP Management (NIIPM) [see link: http://ipindia.nic.in/Niipm/index.htm%5D has a stated mandate to conduct training and awareness programmes in IP – that is a target they need to have better sight of.
Sorry Prof. Shaamnad,
You are absolutely right , this could have been answered very well and in fact doesn’t attract the provision of a separate RTI query. But the actual fact lies somewhere else, the present CPIO of the IPO Kolkata is very casual as far as the RTI Act is concerned.It is not very clear why such type of lameduck officers are choosen for serious issues like RTI related matter. It is not only creating problems for people like us who are seeking information but also for IPO itself by degrading its image.
Atleast policy related informations and information pertaining to such type of query where there appears a conflict between two Acts were given in very lucid manner earlier even during the initial phase of RTI Act back in 2005-2006.
However Sumathi Chandrasekaran’s article should be eye opener for IPO Kolkata.