'Would US Courts Do the Same?' Supreme Court Questions Pfizer On Plea To Access Indian Company's Documents

The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned whether foreign courts and Western authorities would reciprocate when Indian courts seek assistance through Letters Rogatory, while hearing a plea by US pharmaceutical major Pfizer.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was considering Pfizer's challenge to a Madras High Court judgment refusing to enforce Letters Rogatory issued by a United States court to obtain documents and testimony from Chennai-based Softgel Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

Raising concerns over sovereignty and reciprocity, the CJI remarked, “When you want to have information, you want to hijack information from any part of the globe. When the question comes of getting information, then you impose your superiority”

Letters Rogatory are formal requests issued by a court in one country to a court in another seeking assistance in collecting evidence for use in legal proceedings.

Pfizer holds a US patent for crystalline forms of Tafamidis, marketed as Vyndamax. It has sued Cipla and Zenara (now Hikma) before the District Court of Delaware, alleging patent infringement. In those proceedings, Pfizer claimed that Softgel was manufacturing the drug for the defendants and sought documents relating to testing, development, and manufacturing processes through Letters Rogatory addressed to Indian authorities.

Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for Pfizer, urged the court to consider the urgency of the matter, pointing out that the trial before the Delaware court is scheduled to commence on April 27. He submitted that Letters Rogatory function on the principle of reciprocity and that foreign courts comply with such requests when Indian authorities issue them.

While agreeing to issue notice, the Bench made it clear that the case would be examined to determine whether reciprocity is, in fact, extended by foreign courts when Indian companies or authorities seek similar assistance.

The CJI observed, “It's not that we are issuing notice because we are convinced with you, we are issuing notice for a different purpose...we would like to know if an Indian company goes there and seeks an order, will they issue?”

Stressing the constitutional dimension of the issue, the CJI added, “We will not compromise with the sovereignty of our country. We are issuing notice because we want to settle the law.”

The Bench also indicated that the Union of India should be impleaded. The CJI remarked, “To my mind, the Union should be a party here; we would like to have their opinion also. It's not a question of prejudice; it's a question of sanctity and sovereignty.”

When Sibal responded that “sovereignty doesn't come into it; they are a private party,” the CJI disagreed, reiterating, “It does come! When you want to have information, you want to hijack information from any part of the globe. When the question comes of getting information, then you impose your superiority.”

Before the Madras High Court, a Division Bench of Justices G Jayachandran and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar had overturned a Single Judge's order that permitted Pfizer to obtain the documents.

Allowing Softgel's appeals, the High Court held that the material sought lacked the specificity required under Article 3 of the Hague Convention and amounted to pre-trial discovery. It noted that India has invoked Article 23 of the Convention, which permits refusal of Letters Rogatory aimed at pre-trial discovery, and dismissed Pfizer's applications.