The heated battle between the incumbent Controller General of Patents Designs and Trademarks and the All India Patent Officers’ Welfare Association (AIPOWA) reached the doorsteps of the Supreme Court this summer in the form of a special leave petition. The petition stems from the Delhi High Court’s refusal (pdf) to entertain AIPOWA’s writ challenging the appointment of the incumbent Controller General- Dr. Unnat P Pandit. The association challenged the appointment of Dr. Pandit, alleging him to be ineligible for the post, and questioned the legality of the process through which he was appointed. While the High Court initially refused to entertain the writ petition, stating that a public interest litigation cannot be entertained on any service matters, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal after the summer vacations (pdf). In this post, we’ll take a closer look at this and understand how the judiciary has treated such disputes in the past.
Allegations Concerning the Appointment of the Controller General
Dr. Pandit was appointed as the Controller General in 2022, succeeding Mr. Rajesh Ratnoo. Challenging Dr. Pandit’s appointment a couple of years later, the association alleged that it was made by the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) arbitrarily. The writ petition alleged that Dr. Pandit does not possess the essential requisite of 5 Annual Confidentiality Reports (basically performance reports issued by the central government for their employees), which is necessary for the appointment to the position of the Controller General. We’ll not get into this allegation at this point since there seems to be no formal mandate of 5 ACRs for this position that I could find. The Association’s counsel also conceded before the High Court that this is based on nonbinding recommendations by the Dept. of Personnel and Training.
Opaque Appointment Process
The other grounds of challenge are much more concerning. It was alleged that initially, a Search Committee under the DPIIT recommended appointment through open recruitment for the position of the Controller General. This was later overruled by a Second Search Committee that instead decided that the members themselves would suggest names instead of seeking candidates through advertisement. Following this, on September 23, 2021, a list of three names was considered and shared with the Appointment Committee of the Cabinet (the Committee that appoints the top officers of the Country), from which Dr. Pandit’s name was finalized.
As per the relevant office memoranda (here and here) by Dept. of Personnel and Training, appointments in the central government are to be made based on open advertisement, which is to be followed without fail. Only in cases where advertisement may not result in adequate response, a search committee should be appointed. However, I am not sure if this directive is followed. After going through the rabbit hole of different ministries and depts’ websites, the only documents that I could find were letters seeking nominations from different secretaries for the position of the Controller General in 2020 (pdf here and here). I could not find what should have been the preceding open recruitment notifications. (Admittedly, this doesn’t mean they were not present, though – just that I could not find them anywhere)
Missing Recruitment Rules
Another pressing allegation in the writ petition was that the appointment was made without any Recruitment Rules in place. The Association alleged that the CGPDTM Recruitment Rules 2001 were rescinded in 2005, and thereafter, no rules were formed. From the office’s website, I can see numerous recruitment rules, but all of them pertain to the selection of other officers of the CGPDTM and not the Controller General. Even the 2001 recruitment rules, which are titled the Controller General of Patent Design and Trademark Recruitment Rules, do not talk about the appointment of the Controller General and rather concern the appointment of other officers like the joint and deputy controllers! Are the same rules supposed to apply for the appointment of the Controller General? I am not sure, in case any reader has a better understanding of the application of these rules in the present case, please feel free to drop a comment below!
Previously, we have highlighted how there has been an inconsistency concerning the employment of examiners to the patent office, where, over the years, different offices have adopted different methods to appoint the officers. In a stark coincidence, the case highlights that the same problem can arise for appointing their boss, too! The lack of clarity on the appointment of the Controller General may not only sweep in the apprehension of bias, but also in case the recruitment is found to be void, in that case, what will happen to the numerous orders passed and lakhs of patents granted by the Authority.
Ordinarily, the best way out would have been to look at the concerned legislation and read the process in light of the powers granted to the government thereunder. Unfortunately, doing so in this case doesn’t really offer much help because the Trademarks Act (the concerned legislation in this case) simply states that the appointment will be made by the Central Government by notification in the official gazette, without prescribing any method/ clarity on how the same is to be conducted.
The Delhi High Court’s Decision in AIPOWA v. Union of India and the Limits of Judicial Intervention
The lack of clarity in legislation and rules might especially be concerning because the courts have adopted a very conservative attitude towards intervening in service matters through the PIL route. The Supreme Court in Hari Bansh Lal vs Sahodar Prasad Mahto & Ors. (2010) has limited the Court’s power to intervene in service matters by specifying that only a writ of quo warranto (challenging the authority of the office holder) can be issued in a service matter when the appointment is contrary to statutory rules. But what to do when the statute itself is unclear on the mode of appointment and the concerning recruitment rules are silent on how the officer is appointed!
Although, the Delhi High Court did not rely on this decision, in a very short order, it refused to entertain the matter, relying on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Duryodhan Sahu v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra (1998) and Seema Dhamdhere v. State of Maharashtra (2007). The Court read these judgements to impose a blanket ban on hearing PILs in service matters. Interestingly, the Supreme Court decision in Hari Bansh Lal (among others) relies on the Duryodhan Sahu decision for its interpretation. However, a closer look at Duryodhan Sahu and Seema Dhamdhere cases would show that such a narrow interpretation might not be accurate. In Duryodhan Sahu, the issue before the Court was whether an Administrative Tribunal can entertain a PIL and thus does not concern the authority of the High Courts to entertain writs or PILs in service matters. The Court’s decision is based on the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, wherein it held that a tribunal cannot entertain a PIL. Thus, this in no way means that a PIL cannot be filed against a service matter.
Similarly, Seema Dhamdhere, doesn’t impose a blanket ban on PIL in Service matters. In fact the Supreme Court gave the following guidelines which are to be kept in mind while hearing the PIL against a service matter:-
The scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation, locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this court in various cases. The Court has to be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the Court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the Executive and the Legislature. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.
The Delhi High Court did not apply any of these criteria and summarily dismissed the petition on a seemingly flawed understanding of the case laws.
The question then comes in: Where is this interpretation coming from? It was perhaps the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal (2003), where the Court read the Duryodhan Sahu judgement narrowly and advised courts to “throw out” the inflow of PILs involving service matters.
Regardless, this understanding might not stay on for a long time. The Supreme Court in Pratap Singh Bisht v. Director, Directorate of Education (2023) raised apprehension on this narrow interpretation. While the dispute in this case was resolved before the matter came to the Supreme Court, the Court nonetheless called the narrow interpretation of Duryodhan Sahu a “debatable issue” and kept the question open to be resolved in an appropriate case. Perhaps this case can be the opportunity the Court was looking for!
The Never-Ending Controversies Surrounding the CGPDTM
Fans of TV series like The Office, Succession, or any other TV show based on the dynamics between a boss and their subordinates would love the drama encompassing the CGPDTM. Over the last two years the CGPDTM has been stuck in a whirlwind of controversies, so much so that the Supreme Court notice only seems to be the tip of the iceberg. To name some of the infamous ones, the mishaps concerning the recruitment of the Patent Examiners, the ensuing fiasco concerning the revalidation of 2-year orders passed by contractual staff of the Trademark Registry, and the uproar over 259 show cause notices issued to the officers in the patent office. Tejaswini has done a fantastic round up of these controversies in her detailed post here.
This trend of controversies seems to continue in 2025. Recently, it has been alleged by AIPOWA that unlawful access has been given to a multinational corporation, Kaizen International, to the CGPDTM database, without the approval of the parent department, DPIIT. Reportedly, the database contains sensitive and unpublished information related to trademarks and patent applications. Surprisingly, the officers of the CGPDTM were asked to cooperate with Kaizen as the exercise was being conducted after approval from the Prime Minister’s Office. However, consequent to an RTI application, AIPOWA alleges that PMO has no communication asking the CGPDTM to seek Kaizen’s assistance. A writ petition was filed before the Supreme Court seeking a court-monitored investigation along with a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). However, the Court refused to entertain the writ but granted the liberty to approach the relevant high court. Consequently, the Association approached the Delhi High Court, where the Court issued notice to the Centre, the Chief Vigilance Commission, and the CBI (pdf).
This feud between AIPOWA and CGPDTM seems far from being over any time soon. As reported by Bhadra Sinha in the Print, the AIPOWA has moved another application before the Supreme Court, alleging that the Controller General is threatening the association members. Filed in the writ challenging the appointment of the Controller General, the application asserts that some of the officers were asked to distance themselves from the writ, failing which they’ll be transferred from their present postings.
Many thanks to Sonisha Srinivasan for her fantastic research on this post!
The post makes for an engaging read. However, it suffers from a fundamental lack of precision in both tone and legal framing, something one would expect a little more rigour on, especially from SpicyIP.
Let’s begin with the first and most glaring misrepresentation: the Supreme Court has not agreed to hear the challenge to the appointment. The order of the Supreme Court clearly says:
Issue notice only with respect to the consideration of maintainability of the Writ Petition.
That’s it. Period.
There is no notice on the challenge to the appointment itself. The Delhi High Court dismissed the petition at the threshold, and the SC is not re-opening that door just yet. The only thing on the table is: whether such a PIL is maintainable at all. This is a critical nuance that the blog conveniently glosses over to create an illusion of the case being heard on merits.
Second, on the issue of locus standi and motivations: It is ironical that the Association is trying to present itself as a crusader for process purity, while conveniently ignoring the elephant in the room, why is this being done two years after the appointment? Why was there no urgency when the appointment was made?
The timing of this challenge coincides neatly with the internal reforms that are now forcing Patent Office staff to actually work to earn their salaries, no more exam prep days funded by public money. Is that mere coincidence? Hardly. The motivation behind this so-called public interest action is transparently self-serving.
Third, about the bureaucratic argument: It is amusing to see parts of the IP community, who constantly decry the slow, sarkari functioning of the IP Office, now protesting the appointment of a technocrat with proven innovation ecosystem experience as CGPDTM. Would we rather have a babu sitting in that chair, one whose skillset is navigating files rather than improving systems?
Even if we accept that there were procedural ambiguities, which are debatable in themselves, the right measure of any such appointment should be: what is the outcome? Has the IP Office improved in functioning under this CG? Objectively, even as a critic of the IP office, I would have to say Yes, it has improved considerably, even if the improvements are still not fully to our satisfaction.
Finally, the blog also seems to ignore a key aspect of administrative law: where the legislation confers broad appointment power to the Central Government without prescribing a process, courts are extremely cautious to interfere unless clear illegality or mala fides are shown. Merely alleging that one prefers another method (like open advertisement) does not by itself constitute a violation of law.
In conclusion: IMO, this petition is a fishing expedition, with the goal to oust a technocrat who is shaking up the cosy world of the IP Office.
IP enthusiasts must ask, do we want to improve India’s IP ecosystem, or entrench old inefficiencies? I feel that delivery should be the only metric, not procedural gotchas driven by vested interests.
I am no apologist for the Government. But I am all for Jai Anusundhan and innovation. And on that metric, India is better served by an IP Office led by someone who understands innovation ecosystems, not by those seeking to drag us back to the “joytime” days when accountability was optional.
Let us focus on delivery, not noise. Let us focus on building India’s innovation capacity, not enabling nuisance litigation dressed up as public interest.
This is how respondent replies anonymously.
Dear Anon (10:07 AM),
Thanks for your comment. Let me frame my response to your key points precisely:-
1) On the fact that the SC has not agreed to hear the appeal on merits: Thank you for pointing this out. The post does not state anywhere that the Court has agreed to hear the matter on merits. The first paragraph clearly says that the Court will hear the SLP post-vacation—that’s all.
2) On the second point regarding motivations and locus standi: The post does not address this issue, as it is for the Court to decide whether the association possesses valid locus standi.
As for motivations—again, the post does not dwell on this aspect, as I am not familiar with the internal politics of the IPO or what these motivations might be. The central purpose of the post was to highlight the opacity surrounding the appointment of the Controller General, and to show that courts have generally refrained from entertaining such questions in service matters, often relying on precedents that don’t address these specific concerns.
3) The bureaucratic argument: Once again, the post does not suggest that a career bureaucrat is inherently better suited to hold the office. Whoever holds the position of Controller General must meet the qualifications prescribed in the relevant rules and should be appointed following proper procedures.
Regarding your argument about the ends justifying the means—I respectfully disagree. This reasoning stands in contrast to Gandhian principles, which are foundational to Indian society. No matter how capable a person may be, they must be able to justify the legitimacy of the process through which they were appointed. I would urge you to revisit the Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain dispute, which underscores the importance of procedural fairness when it comes to the government offices. The post attempts to question precisely the lack of transparency around this process.
4) On the post missing fundamentals of administrative law: I would urge you to re-read the section where the post outlines the fundamental considerations courts must account for while assessing a PIL related to a service matter. There is a vast body of jurisprudence affirming that the discretionary powers of the government can indeed be scrutinized. The post simply reiterates that these precedents must be assessed in the present context to shed light on the appointment process of the Controller General.
Lastly, in your conclusion: You note that the IPO is more accountable today. But isn’t it somewhat ironic to argue that, in the name of improving accountability at the IPO, we should overlook the need for accountability and transparency in how its top officer was appointed in the first place?
Dear Anon (1:41 AM),
Thanks for your reply.While I’d also prefer that such people leave comments under their own name, I’m not sure it’s proper to make implications about who the person is.
I did some digging. It seems to me that people who can give authoritative answer on how the appointment procedure for the CGPDTM carried out are sitting in “Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, P.G., and Pensions, Government of India”. See e.g., here: https://dpiit.gov.in/sites/default/files/jobs_dated_04022019.pdf
You are right. The entire process is designed to be opaque. But check this link announcing the appointment of the CGPDTM: https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/Images/pdf/IPRNewsletter_Jan-Mar.pdf
The current CGPDTM seems to have in-depth experience in this area and more importantly, the workings of the government of India bureaucracy.
It may seem as well to be a political appointment. From the “officer on special duty” of the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion to the CGPDTM matches the trajectory of folks like Raghuram Rajan who was also the officer on special duty before becoming the Governor of RBI. What it means is, the government retains a backdoor entry for qualified professionals to the posts like the CGPDTM, Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the RBI Governor and the like. These folks appear to be generally experts in their area, but did not take any civil services examination. This in itself is not a sign of opaqueness. I think this level of discretion should be given to any government. The burden of proving that there is arbitrariness is with the petitioners, not the Union Government. I don‘t think that has been shown by the petitioners reading their writ petition to the High Court. I don‘t know how „arbitrariness“ can be proved 🙂
Dear PIL,
Thank you for your comment. That is an interesting analogy you have drawn. Even if we ignore the fact that the appointment of the RBI Governor follows a different process altogether (the Governor is appointed based on the recommendation of FSRASC after an interview of the suitable candidate from the list maintained by the committee https://rsdebate.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/664456/1/IQ_240_19072016_U215_p142_p143.pdf), and that the Supreme Court is hearing a petition seeking reforms in the appointment of the CAG (https://indianexpress.com/article/india/cag-appointment-procedure-pil-centre-reply-9890508/), my concern here is with:
a) the lack of clarity on the rules followed to appoint the CG, even if the rules allow the government to appoint anyone; and
b) the failure to follow or revise the recruitment rules for the Controller General.
The post does not question the discretion of the government as much as it is trying to figure out how exactly is the CG appointed.
On the issue of arbitrariness, I agree that the onus falls on the petitioner and the least that can be done by the Court to hear the petition and then pass an order giving reason for accepting or rejecting it, instead of rejecting it by relying on incorrect precedents.
May be you missed the point. I did not say that the appointment of the RBI Governor and the CGPDTM is same. My contention is that the trajectory of bringing non-bureaucrats by the Central Government matches. They seem to get to work as the officer on special duty in a ministry to understand the bureaucracy within the ministry. This is perhaps to make it easier to push “reforms” as they are not career bureaucrats, I don’t know for sure.
I understand that the current CGPDTM may not appear to be a “Knight in Shining Armour” (https://spicyip.com/2011/06/ph-kurian-patent-offices-knight-in.html) or may not be bringing “fresh thinking” (https://spicyip.com/2009/01/indian-patent-office-breaks-with.html). But as I said, these posts appear to be political appointments and not purely political appointments as some level of competence is needed.
My personal experience has been that the Kinghts in Shining Armours and the career bureaucrats (e.g., IAS cadre officers) are generally uncritical of the established processes.
On the legal side: section 3(1) of the Trademarks act and section 73(1) of the Patents Act which refers back to section 3(1) of the Trademarks act mention that the Central Govt *may*, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a person to be known as the Controller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks. Clearly, the notification in the Official Gazette is not mandatory. You have mentioned the lack of rules in the appointment of the CGPDTM.
Hence, what does common sense dictate? To me, it appears to be to file a petition under RTI Act to obtain the authoritative information on the appointment process of the CGPDTM, if it is possible from the Government of India. As I mentioned, the competent department may be the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, P.G., and Pensions, Government of India. However, I am not so sure about this because the original link I posted refers to other posts within the IPO and not CGPDTM. However, jumping the gun and filing a petition questioning the non-transparency and claiming arbitrariness reeks of unsound legal strategy. And if the Supreme Court, after their around 7 weeks long colonial traditions-inspired summer vacation, wants to entertain this type of unsound legal strategy (without authoritative information), good on them.
Dear Anon,
Thank you for your continued engagement on this. I understand your point that these are political appointments and do not necessarily require a career bureaucrat to be at the helm of affairs. That is not the point my post seeks to contest. The concern I have raised is regarding the opacity of the rules, especially when the Central Staffing Scheme regulations require such rules to be in place, and the lack of publicly available information on how such appointments are made. Reason being – people should know how the top officers are appointed.
On your comment about filing RTIs—we have previously seen how the RTI Act isn’t always effective in securing the information sought (you can refer to some of the pieces by Prashant Reddy on this, who has written extensively on the flaws with the RTI Act’s implementation). But does that make filing a petition before the court the only viable option? I’m not sure. Again, the post does not concern itself with the appellant’s strategy, just like it doesn’t say that an expert cannot be appointed as the controller general.
However, if the appellants are indeed pursuing litigation, I found it noteworthy that the previous order was based on what appears to be an incorrect precedent, and I felt that was an important point to highlight.
Spicy IP has been maintaining amazing consistency in providing one sided support ,of course subtly to,
IPO management, during PH kurien’s regime
AIPOWA ,during the current regime of Dr Pandit
Indeed ” independent reporting/analysis”, SpicyIP !!
Dear Anon,
I agree, SpicyIP has been providing one-sided support over the past 20 years. But not to IPO management or AIPOWA; rather, its support and efforts have been directed towards highlighting issues such as the lack of accountability and transparency within the system, pointing out how the system focuses only on quantitative metrics as evidence of growth and explaining why this is harmful, emphasizing the need to focus on quality, analyzing unreasoned orders, and asking for greater clarity for the overall improvement of the system.
Few examples where policy decisions that are capable of having a strong impact on IP eco system have never been discussed critically as per “objectives” listed.
From 2009 to 2011 , 3 policy decisions were taken whose consequences were never discussed in Spicy IP nor anywhere by anyone.
1)new examiner’ s posting was decided to be away from home state ,inspired by the practice followed for posting in Civil services,a first in IPO.
Result: subject “xyz engg” applications were being filed in branch offices A,B where as examiners of Subject “XYZ engg” were posted in branch offices C,D.Consequently Examiners of subject “xyz engg” were examining patent applications mostly from other subjects but not “XYZ engg” .We all can guess if this facilitates meaningful outcomes.
It was only in 2016 ,when applications allotment became centralised affair, this matter got resolved.
2A)Controllers were directed to sign examination reports themselves, changing from the previous practice of examiners signing examination reports on behalf of Controllers(.Fair enough ,as the same is in line with Section 14)
2B).Post grant matters were decided to be handled by a different controller other than the one who granted the same.
When implications of both 2A,2B were considered together it becomes clear that, ” a controller is required to take ownership for examination report issuance( fair point),but the same controller however is not required to handle the matter at Post grant ,if it were to be filed consequent to his/her action(strange) .
Surely an incentive to be less responsible for any “govt babu”.
Point is why were these matters did not come up for critical discussion from 2009 -2011 , per the objectives of SPICY IP( in spite of being privy)?
Every one has the intent / interest to set things right ,but do not critically question the ones they trust ,resulting in incorrect assumptions wrt diagnosis/successes sadly at the cost of noble objectives.
I still want to be proven wrong at least about the present.
Like to see if you can come up/ invite multiple views on the matters currently written about here.
Dear Anon,
Thank you for your response. Now that you’ve pointed out these three instances, I’m sure they will help further the discussion in the right context. This is how arguments are built, and readers like you contribute meaningfully to the dialogue on the blog. We’ve had numerous instances in the past where continued engagement and discussion have stemmed from tips and inputs shared by our readers.
To be clear, I wasn’t critical of anything other than the insinuation that the blog has been biased towards a particular side or group of people.
Lastly, on your point about accepting multiple views- along with the engagement in the publicly accessible comments section where the readers are free to share their views, we also welcome guest posts that counter or add to the views presented by any of the authors-
https://spicyip.com/guest-post-submission-guidelines
The points 1,2 raised prove that if support is assured from those who can set narrative ,one carries out any actions which undermine the common goal.
Via this post ,Spicyip is trying to highlight the need for procedural adherence in appointment of CG ,fair enough.
Whether the petitioner AIPOWA stands for the same is to be given a thought?
In Bharati Rathore vs Union of India ,it was pointed out by the High court that “Examiners recruitment happening without interviews is a violation of procedure framed by Justice Alla Rakha committee”.(Spicyip appropriately highlighted the same also. https://spicyip.com/2021/06/the-examination-of-the-examiner-analysing-the-delhi-high-courts-recent-observations.html)
What was the stand of AIPOWA regarding such recruitment procedure of examiners as observed by High court?
AIPOWA did not object about examiners recruitment without interviews ,before and after high court’s observation,whereas AIPOWA is objecting to procedural non-adherence in CG s recruitment .This perhaps indicates that the litigation before SC, is not motivated by public interest rather by some thing else.
Of course AIPOWA has the right to challenge CG ‘s recruitment in Court, notwithstanding the double standards with regards to seeking procedural adherence in one instance but not in the other.
But the question is whether SPICYIP can lend it’s platform to AIPOWA by giving “digital space” to such actions of AIPOWA considering that SPICY IP is not a news channel or news Paper.
Dear ever-watchful editorial sentinels of SpicyIP,
Anon No. 1 appears to be the lone voice of sanity in this tangled thread of courtroom dramatics, bureaucratic nostalgia, and what might be termed selective outrage disorder. Kudos to them (and while we’re at it, SpicyIP, it’s 2025, could Anons maybe get to share their pronouns?).
Let’s be honest for a moment. We’re told to be deeply concerned about appointments being “opaque” — unless, of course, they go through 14 levels of bureaucracy, 5 Standing Committees, and at least 2 overworked babus nodding in fatigued unison. In such cases, we call it “due process.” But if a technocrat is brought in via the wrong amount of red tape? That’s suddenly “controversial.” The irony writes itself.
Let’s now sip the real tee: SpicyIP seems more dismayed by who got appointed than how. Which raises a spicier question — when do we get a post scrutinizing SpicyIP’s own editorial appointments? Who’s on the Search Committee there? What’s the eligibility — mastery of hyperlinks and flair for anti-CGPDTM snark?
While we’re on the topic of transparency, surely it’s time for some chai pe charcha between SpicyIP and the CGPDTM. That might actually result in something more useful than another round of institutional gotchas — maybe even some Masala Tee on innovation reform?
Also, could we please stop pretending this is about “public interest”? This whole petition reads less like a righteous crusade and more like a highly stylized way of saying: “We miss the good ol’ days when no one asked us to justify our salaries.” If you’re going to drag someone to court, at least make sure it’s not because your afternoon nap was disrupted by performance metrics.
And let’s not forget — the Supreme Court hasn’t even issued notice on the appointment itself. It’s only checking if the petition is even maintainable. That’s the judicial equivalent of RSVP-ing to a wedding with, “Let me think about thinking about it.”
Now, I would be derelict in my anonymous duties if I didn’t thank you for your spirited defenses. You almost had me convinced that SpicyIP is a temple of procedural purity — until I remembered it also doubles up as a clubhouse for selective scrutiny.
This post doesn’t just raise questions about process — it subtly joins the well-tuned chorus that emerges whenever someone from outside the cozy bureaucratic fold tries adjusting the thermostat of reform. If transparency is truly the goal, let’s point that magnifying glass at all process breakdowns — not just the ones that threaten familiar comfort zones.
And forgive my procedural ignorance, but since when did SpicyIP start sounding like a PIL strategy consultant? In fact, I’d go so far as to say the only thing murkier than the CGPDTM appointment might be SpicyIP’s own editorial selection process. Are there open calls? Central Staffing Scheme compliance? Gazette notifications? And if we’re so concerned about influence and opacity — dare I say — a little funding transparency could spice things up quite a bit.
All said with genuine admiration — it takes a special skill to uphold “public interest” while carefully dancing around political context, internal motivations, and questions that hit a little too close to home.
So here’s a modest proposal: before we canonize PILs and crucify appointments, let’s begin with a little editorial introspection. Equal-opportunity skepticism is the best spice.
Until then, chai pe charcha with the CGPDTM might lead to fewer footnotes — and more facts.
Warm regards,
Yet Another Anonymous (They/Them, Bureaucracy-Curious, Procedurally Amused)