Making the writ petition absolute, the Bombay High Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs for refusing the application for patent “Ultra Supercritical Boiler Header Alloy and Method of Preparation”, filed by Huntington Alloys Corporation. While disposing of the writ petition in Huntington Alloys Corporation vs Union of India & Ors [Writ Petition No.2086 OF 2021], April 7, 2026, the Bombay High Court looked into the reasons given by the Department of Atomic Energy for refusing the application under Section 20(1) of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962.
The Court found that the rejection order under Section 4 in this case was not based on reasons. This case once again pointed out that a reasoned order is a judicial decision that provides explicit reasons and justification for its conclusion, ensuring transparency and accountability and contributing to upholding the rule of law. Terming it as the ‘heartbeat’ of the judicial order, the Court observed that it replaces subjectivity with objectivity and ensures that the authority passing the order has applied its mind to the facts placed before it. The absolute status of this writ petition would ensure that the petitioner’s rights are protected and that the Court’s decision is final and binding.
Factual Matrix
The petitioner, Huntington Alloys Corporation (a Corporation incorporated under the laws of the USA) is aggrieved by the order dated November 18, 2020, passed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and further order dated April 6, 2021 passed by the Department of Atomic Energy, thereby rejecting their patent application for “Ultra Supercritical Boiler Header Alloy and Method of Preparation”, filed a writ petition challenging both the orders. The petitioner filed a national phase patent application (PCT/US2009/040019), which was allotted the number IN’4211 and published under Section 11-A of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter, “Act of 1970”). The request for examination was submitted on March 9, 2012, and no steps were taken by the Controller under Sections 12 to 14 of the Act of 1970. On November 18, 2020, the Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs forwarded a communication to the Department of Atomic Energy regarding the patent application, concluding that the invention relates to Atomic Energy and, hence, the application should be refused.
Petitioner’s Case
The petitioner submitted that they had filed a request for examination of their national phase application under the PCT in 2012 and requested that the Patent Office take no steps to consider the said application. It was alleged by the petitioner that, through an order dated April 6, 2021, passed by the Department of Atomic Energy, the petitioner was informed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs that their patent application had been rejected under Section 4 of the Patents Act, 1970, without a hearing.
The petitioner contended that their invention relates only to alloys suitable for Ultra Supercritical Boiler applications and in no way results in the release of atomic energy. According to the petitioner, the amended provision of Section 65 is now limited to the revocation of the patent, and the Patent Office no longer has the option of not considering the application. The petitioner contended that the orders passed by the respondents, being unreasoned, lacking jurisdiction, and showing non-application of mind, are liable to be quashed and set aside.
Reply of the Respondent Controller
Contesting the writ petition, the respondent Controller submitted that the application of the petitioner was taken up for examination and on the basis of the report of the Examiner, it was noticed that the said application fell within the ambit of Section 4 of the Patents Act as the invention consists of Niobium and Tantalum compositions. The respondent Controller deemed it appropriate to obtain necessary directions from the Department of Atomic Energy. The DRDO (Respondent No. 4), upon review of the application, concluded that the petitioner’s invention relates to atomic energy and, hence, refused the application.
The respondent Controller submitted that the Department of Atomic Energy is the final authority to decide whether a patent relating to atomic energy can be granted or not, and its decision is final, and there was no scope for the Patent Office to grant a hearing to the Petitioner under Section 14 of the Act of 1970, as the final decision was taken by the Department of Atomic Energy. The respondent Controller submitted that due process of law, as provided in the Act of 1970, was followed in screening the application for any relevance to atomic energy or the defence of India, and in seeking future directions from the Department of Atomic Energy or DRDO. The respondent submitted that, since the decision is finally taken by DRDO upon refusal of the patent application, there is no scope for judicial intervention.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Court perused the scheme of the two enactments: Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and Patents Act, 1970 and found that Section 3 of the Act of 1962 clothed the Central Government with distinct powers relating to atomic energy and for taking measures conducive to the production and supply of electricity from atomic energy, as well as the use of atomic energy for the welfare purpose. It is in the wake of this power conferred on the Central Government that no invention, which relates to the production, control, use, or disposal of atomic energy, is allowed to be patented, and the Central Government is conferred with the power to issue directions to the Controller of Patents and Designs to refuse the application on that ground. In relation to the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, the Court found that the Act provides a procedure for granting a patent, and Section 65, in particular, provides for the revocation of a patent or the amendment of the complete specification on directions from the Government in cases relating to atomic energy.
On the Interpretation of Section 65
The Court compared the amended provisions of Section 65 with the original provision as per the Patents Act, 1970 and found that the petitioner’s contention that, in view of the amendment in Section 65, the power which is now available to the patent office under the provision is restricted to revocation of the patent, and the option of non-consideration of the application is not available has no merit. The Court observed that when Section 65 was introduced in the Act of 1970, the Controller Court was authorised to refuse to proceed with a pending application, or to revoke a granted patent. After the amendments to Section 65, which cast a burden on a person making an invention in relation to atomic energy to communicate it to the State Government or seek its permission, there were no applications pending, and the provision was therefore restricted to the revocation of a patent grant.
The Court ruled that, in no case, can this provision be construed to mean that the patent application shall be granted first and then revoked if it relates to atomic energy, in the wake of the bar imposed under subsection (1) of Section 20 of the Act of 1962. According to the Court, what is notable in both cases is the permissibility authorising the Central Government to refuse any application for a patent for an invention relating to atomic energy. Additionally, the Court found the permissibility of allowing the patentee to amend the complete specification in such a manner as the Controller considers necessary, instead of revocation of the patent, if it is granted, was retained under subsection (2) of Section 65.
Court’s Ruling
In view of the above interpretation of Section 65, the Court ruled that “since the application of the petitioner has been kept pending since 2010, there is no question of its revocation, but on consideration of application, it is permissible for the Central Government to issue direction to the Controller to refuse to proceed the same, if it relates to atomic energy, but to save such an application from its non-consideration on the said ground, it is open for the patentee/applicant to amend the specification, so as to avoid its invention involving atomic energy, resulting into its complete rejection.
On Applicability of the SHANTI Act, 2025
The Court also noted the significant aspect of the enactment of the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act, 2025, an Act of Parliament providing for promotion and development of nuclear energy, including its application in healthcare, food, water, agriculture, industry, research, environment for the welfare of the people of India and providing for robust regulatory framework for its safe and secure utilisation and acknowledged the absolute embargo to consider grant of patent has been relaxed by making it permissible to encourage invention involving atomic energy for welfare purposes. The Court noted that the said Act has not yet been brought into force.
On the Impugned Order “Sans Raison”
After perusing the impugned order passed by Respondents No. 3 and 4, the Court found that though both the respondents noted that the invention of the petitioner relates to atomic energy, they refused the application for the grant of a patent, but no reasons were assigned in the said orders to support the said order. The Court then looked into the definition of “atomic energy”, as per the Act of 1962 and found that “atomic energy”, as per the Act of 1962, is the energy released from atomic nuclei as a result of any process, including the fission and fusion processes. The Court ruled that we do not find any reasoning contained in the impugned order.
The Court also noted that the stand of the petitioner, supported by the specification furnished in regard to the invention, that it is not even remotely related to atomic energy, was not looked into by the respondents. According to the Court, a process relating to the release of atomic energy is known to the experts with the Central Government, but when a person seeks a patent for his invention, according to us, he must be made aware of the reasons why his patent cannot be granted. The Court held that the petitioner, whose application/invention was rejected, is entitled to know the basis of rejection.
On Denial of Opportunity to Amend
The Court pointed out that under sub-section (2) of Section 65, upon the reasons being communicated to the applicant, it is open for him to vary his invention, so as to avoid rejection of the application. According to the Court, if the reasons were furnished to the petitioner, it was open for them to adopt the procedure under Section 65(2) of the Act of 1970, and the option of amending the specification was available to them. The Court ruled that the petitioner was denied this opportunity and was not informed of the reasons for the rejection of its application.
Court’s Decision
Citing the decision of the High Court in Ceres Intellectual Property Company Limited vs The Controller of Patents, Trademarks and Designs & Ors., dated October 6, 2022, the Court held that the order refusing the patent application is sans any reason, the same cannot be sustained and was liable to be set aside. The Court permitted consideration of the patent application of the petitioner, along with the specification by the Respondent No. 4, for passing a reasoned order.
Conclusion
The Court once again observed that a non-speaking or unreasoned order hinders the Appellate Court’s ability to test the correctness. The Court lamented that the situation is not rare, when the unreasoned orders passed by administrative/judicial authorities are frowned upon. The Court categorically stated that procedural fairness can be ensured if the order passed is supported by reasons that disclose the mind of the authority taking the decision. The Court noted that the power is specifically vested in the Central Government to refuse a patent application if it involves atomic energy, but according to the Court, “in our view, we see no difficulty as to why the reasons cannot be disclosed”.
This is also necessary since a process related to the release of atomic energy is known to experts within the Central Government, but not to a person seeking a patent for his invention. Additionally, as indicated under sub-section (2) of Section 65, an opportunity to amend shall not be denied to the petitioner. This case highlights that every adverse order of the Patent Office must be reasoned, even when it involves the summary rejection of a patent under the Atomic Energy Act. This ruling may serve as a precursor to provide for a robust regulatory framework to resolve patentability issues relating to safe and secure utilisation of atomic energy and to acknowledge that the absolute embargo to consider grant of patent has been relaxed under the SHANTI Act, 2026, by making it permissible to encourage invention involving atomic energy for welfare purposes. A boom in patent applications in this emerging sector may also be expected soon.