List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia in the case of Sangita Rai v. New Delhi Bar Association & Ors. (2025) dismissed an intra-court appeal on January 16, 2026, upholding that writ petitions seeking mandamus against Bar Associations are not maintainable as they are private entities not covered under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, 1950(COI).  

What was the Background of Sangita Rai v. New Delhi Bar Association & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The appellant, Sangita Rai, is an Advocate enrolled with the Bar Council in 2000 with Enrolment No. D/53-E/2000. 
• She has been practicing regularly since 2000 and has represented Government agencies and autonomous bodies. 
• She has been on the Senior Panel of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited since 2011 and also on panels of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Delhi Jal Board, and Municipal Corporation of Delhi. 
• In 2013, one Mr. Asgar Ali, who claimed to be the allottee of Chamber No. 279A at Patiala House Court Campus, approached the appellant and offered the chamber to her on monthly rent. 
• The appellant started functioning from the said chamber on a rental basis. 
• On a certain date, when the appellant returned from Tis Hazari Court, she found Mr. Asgar Ali along with ten other persons occupying her chamber after breaking open the lock. 
• These persons allegedly threatened, abused, and pressurized her to remove her belongings and vacate the chamber without any reason. 
• On February 4, 2023, office bearers of the New Delhi Bar Association, instead of helping her, threatened her to vacate the chamber immediately and put a lock of the Bar Association on the chamber. 
• This left the appellant helpless as her belongings, including case files of various government departments, became inaccessible, adversely affecting her profession. 
• The police were informed but did not take action against the alleged trespassers and refused to register a written complaint, advising her to approach the Chairperson of the Bar Association. 
• The appellant filed representations with the Bar Association and the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, with various reminders, but received no response. 
• On March 6, 2023, while appearing before the Central Administrative Tribunal, she received a call informing her that her files and documents had been thrown out of the chamber onto the street. 
• The appellant filed W.P.(C) 3331/2023 seeking directions to remove the lock, hand over possession, and direct the Bar Association and/or Bar Council of Delhi to take action against advocates who allegedly committed criminal trespass. 
• The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on October 30, 2023, holding it not maintainable. 
• During proceedings, the District Judge In-charge enabled the appellant to remove her belongings, and keys were handed over to Mr. Asgar Ali with an undertaking not to sub-let the chamber. 
• On May 8, 2024, the appellant did not press Prayer A (seeking possession) and the appeal was confined to Prayer B (seeking action against advocates). 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that the Bar Association is neither 'State' nor its instrumentality within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, nor does it perform any public functions. 
• Bar Associations are bodies of private individual lawyers registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with the primary object of ensuring welfare of their members. 
• The affairs of Bar Associations are governed by their Memorandum of Association, Constitution, and Rules, not by statutory public duties. 
• Bar Associations are purely private entities and cannot be termed as 'State' or its instrumentality or agency or authority for any reason whatsoever. 
• In the absence of public functions being discharged by the Bar Association, no mandamus can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution. 
• The Court observed that the acts complained of by the appellant may warrant criminal action, and the appellant could institute proceedings under criminal law to put the criminal machinery in motion. 
• Regarding the Bar Council of Delhi, which is a statutory body with the duty to regulate the profession and take disciplinary action for misconduct, the Court noted that the appellant should have approached the Bar Council directly instead of seeking a mandamus. 
• The Court emphasized that for seeking a writ of mandamus, a person must first approach the concerned authorities, and only upon their failure can a mandamus be sought for failure to discharge statutory duties. 
• The Court agreed with the Single Judge's decision that the writ petition was not maintainable. 
• The Court clarified that it remains open to the appellant to take recourse to appropriate civil or criminal action by invoking the jurisdiction of a competent court or by approaching the Bar Council of Delhi. 
• The Division Bench dismissed the intra-court appeal, finding no force in the appellant's arguments. 

What is Article 12 of the Constitution of India? 

About: 

• Article 12 lays down that unless the context otherwise requires, the State includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. 
• The definition of State is inclusive and provides that State includes the following: 
  • Government and Parliament of India i.e., the Executive and Legislature of the Union. 
  • Government and Legislature of each State i.e., the Executive and Legislature of the various States of India. 
  • All local or other authorities within the territory of India, or under the control of the Government of India. 

Local or Other Authorities Within the Territory of India: 

• The expression local authorities is defined in Section 3(31) of the General Clause Act, 1897 as local Authority shall mean a municipal committee, district board, body of commissioner or other authority legally entitled to or entrusted by the Government within the control or management of a municipal or local fund. 
• The expression local authorities usually refer to authorities such as municipalities, District Boards, Panchayats, mining settlement boards, etc. Anybody functioning under the state; owned; controlled and managed by the State and carrying out a public function is a local authority and comes within the definition of the state. 
• The term other authorities have nowhere been defined. Therefore, its interpretation has caused a good deal of difficulty, and judicial opinion has undergone changes over time. 
• The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. R.C. Jain (1981) laid down the test for determining which bodies would be considered as a local authority under the definition of State enshrined under Article 12 of the COI. The Court held that if an authority: 
  • Has a separate legal existence 
  • Functions in a defined area 
  • Has the power to raise funds on its own 
  • Enjoys autonomy i.e., self-rule 
  • Is entrusted by statute with functions which are usually entrusted to municipalities, then such authorities would come under ‘local authorities’ and hence would be State under Article 12 of the COI. 

Whether a Body falls Under Article 12 or Not? 

• In R.D Shetty v. Airport Authority of India (1979) Justice P.N Bhagwati gave 5 Point test. This is a test to determine whether a body is an agency or instrumentality of the State and goes as follows – 
  • Financial resources of the State, where the State is the chief funding source i.e. the entire share capital is held by the government. 
  • Deep and pervasive control of the State. 
  • The functional character being Governmental in its essence, meaning thereby that its functions have public importance or are of a governmental character. 
  • A department of Government transferred to a corporation. 
  • Enjoys monopoly status which State conferred or is protected by it. 
• This was elucidated with the statement that the test is only illustrative and not conclusive in its nature and is to be approached with great care and caution. 

Case Laws: 

• University of Madras v. Shanta Bai (1950), the Madras High Court evolved the principle of ‘ejusdem generis’ i.e., of the like nature. It means that only those authorities are covered under the expression ‘other authorities’ which perform governmental or sovereign functions. Further, it cannot include persons, natural or juristic, for example, Unaided universities. 
• Ujjammabai v. the State of UP (1961), the Supreme Court rejected the above restrictive scope and held that the ‘ejusdem generis’ rule could not be resorted to in interpreting other authorities. The bodies named under Article 12 have no common genus running through them and they cannot be placed in one single category on any rational basis. 

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court in the case of Alkem Laboratories Limited v. Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt Ltd. (2025) held that English alphabets cannot be monopolised through trademark law and refused interim protection to the mark 'A TO Z' used by a pharmaceutical company. 

What was the Background of Alkem Laboratories Limited v. Prevego Healthcare and Research Pvt Ltd. (2025) Case? 

• Alkem Laboratories filed a suit against Prevego Healthcare over the use of 'AZ' in the branding of multivitamin products. 
• Alkem argued that Prevego's product 'Multivein AZ' infringed its well-known 'A to Z' and 'A to Z-NS' brands. 
• Alkem claimed it had been using the 'A to Z' mark since 1998 for pharmaceutical and health supplement products. 
• The plaintiff alleged that Prevego's use of 'AZ' for similar health supplements amounted to trademark infringement, passing off and copyright violation in its logo and trade dress. 
• An ex parte injunction had been granted earlier in favour of Alkem Laboratories. 
• Prevego contended that 'A to Z' was a commonly used phrase denoting comprehensiveness and lacked distinctiveness. 
• The defendant argued that its mark 'Multivein AZ' was visually, phonetically and conceptually different, with 'Multivein' being the dominant element. 
• Prevego pointed out that Alkem did not hold a word-mark registration for 'A to Z' in Class 5, which covers pharmaceutical products. 
• The case involved products in the multivitamin and health supplement category. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• Justice Karia stated, "Hence, the Mark 'A TO Z' is descriptive in nature. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be allowed to monopolize the use of the letters 'A' and 'Z' by seeking exclusivity over the right to use the letters 'A' and 'Z'." 
• The Court held that trademarks must be assessed as a whole rather than broken into individual components. 
• The Court found that the addition of 'Multivein' significantly altered the overall impression of the defendant's mark and reduced any likelihood of consumer confusion. 
• The Court criticised Alkem for failing to disclose earlier trademark applications for 'A to Z' in Class 5 that had been withdrawn, abandoned or opposed. 
• The Court ruled that such non-disclosure disentitled Alkem from equitable relief. 
• Justice Karia rejected Alkem's claims of copyright infringement. 
• The Court vacated the ex parte injunction granted earlier in favour of Alkem. 
• The Court allowed Prevego to continue selling its product under the 'Multivein AZ' mark. 
• The judgment emphasized that English alphabets cannot be monopolised through trademark law. 

What is Trademark Law in India? 

About Trademarks: 

• A trademark is a symbol, word, phrase, design, or combination of these elements used to identify and distinguish the goods or services of one company from those of another. 
• Trademarks are protected by Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). 
• Trademark law in India is governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which protects distinctive marks used in trade and commerce. 
• A trademark can include words, logos, symbols, colors, or combinations thereof that distinguish goods or services of one entity from another. 
• Trademarks can be registered with government agencies to provide legal protection against unauthorized use by others. 
• For a mark to be registrable, it must possess distinctiveness and should not be descriptive, generic, or commonly used. 
• Class 5 of trademark classification covers pharmaceutical products, medicinal preparations, and health supplements. 
• Marks that are descriptive in nature generally lack the distinctiveness required for trademark protection. 
• Common phrases or alphabetical combinations that denote comprehensiveness are typically not eligible for exclusive trademark protection. 

Legislative Framework: 

• The Trade Marks Act, 1999 was enacted and brought into force on 30th December 1999 to amend and consolidate the law relating to trade marks in India. 
• The stated object of the Act is: "An Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to trade marks, to provide for registration and better protection of trade marks for goods and services and for the prevention of the use of fraudulent marks." 
• The Act comprises 13 Chapters encompassing a total of 159 Sections, delineating the framework governing the registration, protection, and enforcement of trademark rights. 
• The Act provides for the registration of trademarks and establishes a system of penalties for infringement. 

Trademarks Registry: 

• The Trademarks Registry was originally established in 1940. 
• At present, it operates under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the corresponding rules framed thereunder, pursuant to the authority of the Central Government of India. 
• The territorial jurisdiction of the Registry extends across the entire territory of India. 
• The Head Office of the Registry is located in Mumbai, with regional branch offices situated in Ahmedabad, Chennai, Delhi, and Kolkata. 
• The Registry is entrusted with the administration of intellectual property rights pertaining to trade marks for goods and services, aimed at ensuring robust protection against infringement and fraudulent usage. 
• Following India's accession to the Madrid Protocol—an international treaty under the Madrid System governing the global registration of trade marks—the Trade Marks Registry also functions in dual capacities: as the Office of Origin for international applications filed by Indian proprietors, and as the Designated Office for applications wherein India has been identified as a country seeking protection. 
• The Trade Marks Registry operates under the leadership of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, who serves ex officio as the Registrar of Trade Marks. 

Trademark Infringement and Passing Off: 

• Trademark infringement occurs when an unauthorized party uses a mark that is identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark without the owner's permission. 
• Infringement can result in legal action, including damages, injunctions, and criminal sanctions. 
• Passing off is a common law remedy that protects unregistered marks where one party misrepresents their goods or services as those of another. 
• For a successful claim of passing off, the plaintiff must establish goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage or likelihood of damage. 
• Courts assess marks as a whole rather than dissecting them into individual components when determining likelihood of confusion. 
• Visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities are considered when evaluating potential confusion between marks. 
• The dominant element of a composite mark plays a significant role in determining overall impression and distinctiveness.

Maintenance Requirements: 

• To maintain legal protection for a trademark, the owner must make regular use of it in connection with the goods or services for which it is registered. 
• Failure to use a mark for an extended period of time may result in the mark being cancelled or invalidated.