PUBLIC DOCUMENTS

Meaning

Public documents are official records authenticated by public officers in their official capacity. These documents serve as reliable evidence in civil matters and are made accessible for public reference and use. They ensure transparency and accountability in governance by allowing the public to inspect and rely on them for legal and administrative purposes.

 

Characteristics of Public Documents

As established in Rangaraju vs. Kannayal and Ors., public documents have several defining characteristics. First, they must be prepared by a public servant while performing official duties. This ensures their authenticity and reliability. Second, these documents should be available for public reference and use, reflecting their public nature. Third, they must pass the test of publicity, meaning the public should have an interest in them and the right to verify their accuracy. If errors are identified, the public has the right to raise objections. Lastly, public documents grant the public the right to inspect and obtain certified copies by paying a prescribed fee, reinforcing their accessibility and evidentiary value.

 

Nature of Public Documents

Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act categorizes certain documents as public. These include acts or records of acts performed by sovereign authorities, official bodies, tribunals, or public officers in their legislative, judicial, or executive capacities. Such documents may originate from India, the Commonwealth, or foreign nations. Additionally, public records of private documents, maintained by public offices, are also classified as public documents.

 

Types of Public Documents and Their Proof

Section 78 of the Indian Evidence Act specifies how different types of public documents can be proved. Acts, notifications, or orders are authenticated through certified records signed by departmental heads. Legislative proceedings are verified using officially published government records. Proclamations, orders, or regulations are evidenced by gazette notifications. For acts of foreign legislatures or executives, official journals or certified copies by legal keepers are used. Records maintained by municipal bodies are proven through published authoritative books. Documents from foreign countries must be certified by diplomatic agents, consuls, or notary publics, ensuring their credibility.

 

Proof of Contents of Public Documents

The contents of public documents are admissible in courts of law, and it is not necessary to produce the original document. Instead, certified copies, authenticated by the appropriate authority, suffice as evidence. This provision simplifies the evidentiary process while maintaining the integrity of the documents presented.

 

Certified Copies of Public Documents

According to Section 76, certified copies of public documents are authenticated reproductions, verified by a public officer with custody of the original document. These certified copies are legally valid and can be obtained by any individual upon payment of a prescribed fee. The certification process requires the officer to confirm in writing that the copy is a true reproduction, along with a date, official seal, and signature, ensuring its authenticity.

To obtain a certified copy, an individual must first request access to the document and pay the required fee. The certified copy, once prepared, includes a statement affirming its accuracy and bears the officer’s authentication. This process ensures that the document can be relied upon in legal and administrative matters.

 

Examples of Public Documents

Public documents include records such as school registers, census reports, and birth and death certificates maintained by municipal authorities. For instance, in Prem Chand Sao v State of Jharkhand, a school leaving certificate indicating a student’s age was deemed admissible without formal proof. Similarly, FIRs and charge sheets are recognized as public documents, as seen in Royal Sundaram Alliances vs D. Gunasekharan. Other examples include confessions recorded by magistrates, marriage registers (Seema vs Ashwin Kumar), sale or lease deeds (Gopinath Educational and Welfare Society v Rejendra Singh Shekhawat), and medico-legal reports (Dalip Kumar Alias Pinkie vs. State). These documents exemplify the wide range of records considered public under the law.

 

Documents That Are Not Public Documents

Not all documents created by or associated with public officers qualify as public documents. For example, income tax returns (Anwar Ali v Tafozal Ahmed), plaints or written statements filed in court (Gulab Chand v Sheo Karan Lal), and police panchanamas (Hardayal Haram Singh case) are not classified as public documents. Similarly, a doctor's certificate on the date of death (State v Bhola Pal) or a registered power of attorney does not meet the criteria to be considered public. These distinctions are crucial for understanding the evidentiary scope and limitations of public documents.

 

Conclusion

Public documents are indispensable in ensuring transparency, accountability, and reliability in legal and administrative matters. Authenticated by public officers, these records are admissible as evidence and are accessible for public inspection. They serve as a bridge between governance and public trust, offering a mechanism for verifying official actions and records. Certified copies further enhance their usability, making them integral to the functioning of legal systems and public administration. Unlike private documents, public documents are subject to greater scrutiny and enjoy specific evidentiary privileges, underscoring their vital role in civil society.

 

CASE ANALYSIS on Novozymes v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs

CASE ANALYSIS

Parties: Novozymes v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs

Bench: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Case Number: CMA (PT) No. 33 of 2023

Citation: 2023 MHC 4261

 

Introduction

The case Novozymes v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs[1] revolves around an appeal against the rejection of a patent application by the Patent Office, Chennai. Novozymes sought to patent phytase variants with improved thermostability under Indian Patent Application No. 5326/CHENP/2008. The Assistant Controller rejected the application on grounds of Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970, asserting that the invention lacked significant enhancement of known efficacy and synergy among its composition. This case highlights critical interpretations of patent eligibility under Indian law, particularly for biochemical innovations.

 

Facts Of The Case

In Indian Patent Application No. 5326/CHENP/2008, Novozymes sought to patent an invention titled "Phytase Variants with Improved Thermostability." The invention involved modifying the amino acid sequence of phytase enzyme (SEQ ID NO:2) to create variants with enhanced thermostability, aiming to improve the enzyme’s ability to withstand high temperatures, particularly for industrial applications like pelletized animal feed. The variants included one to four amino acid alterations from a list of possible mutations, such as 4P, 46E, 52E, 53V, 76G, 107G, and others. Novozymes also provided a method to test thermostability by measuring the enzyme’s residual activity after incubating it at 60°C and 5°C, comparing it to the reference phytase SEQ ID NO:2. The enhanced thermostability was claimed to make these variants suitable for use at higher temperatures without denaturation, increasing their industrial utility.

In addition to the phytase variants, the application included composition claims (claims 8–11), which combined the thermostable phytase variants with fat-soluble and water-soluble vitamins and trace minerals to form animal feed additives intended to provide nutritional benefits.

However, the Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs rejected the application, arguing that the invention did not meet patentability requirements under Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970. Under Section 3(d), the Controller contended that the invention was merely a new form of a known substance (phytase) without significantly enhancing its efficacy. The Controller argued that enhanced thermostability did not improve phytase’s primary function—hydrolyzing phytate for phosphorus digestion—beyond what was already known. The composition claims (claims 8–11) were rejected under Section 3(e) as they were considered a mere admixture of known ingredients, without synergy or a novel interaction that would warrant patentability.

Novozymes filed an appeal, challenging the rejection. It argued that the enhanced thermostability of the variants represented a significant improvement in the enzyme's efficacy for industrial applications, especially in animal feed production. The company also contended that the composition claims involved novel combinations with potential synergistic effects. The appeal raised critical questions about the interpretation of Section 3(d) in the context of biochemicals like phytase and the applicability of Section 3(e) to compositions that utilized these innovations.[2]

 

Issues Raised

1.     Whether the term "known substance" under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act should be interpreted to include biochemical substances like phytase variants or is it limited to synthetic chemical substances.

2.     Whether the enhanced thermostability of the phytase variants constitutes a "significant enhancement" of the known efficacy of the enzyme under Section 3(d).

3.     Whether the composition claims (claims 8–11) are merely an admixture of known ingredients without the necessary synergy to be patentable under Section 3(e).

4.     Whether the combination of phytase variants with vitamins and minerals in the composition claims exhibits synergy beyond the sum of its parts, making it eligible for patent protection under Section 3(e).

 

Analysis Of The Issues Raised

1. Does "known substance" under Section 3(d) include biochemicals like phytase variants or is it limited to synthetic chemicals?

The term "known substance" under Section 3(d) raises questions about its scope—whether it applies only to synthetic chemicals or can extend to biochemicals. Section 3(d) prohibits patents for new forms of known substances unless they enhance efficacy, and its Explanation lists examples like salts, esters, and isomers, which are generally associated with synthetic chemicals.

In this case, the appellant argued that phytase, being a naturally occurring enzyme, should not be treated as a synthetic chemical and should not fall within the Explanation. The Court applied the ejusdem generis principle and found that the Explanation is indeed limited to synthetic chemicals. However, the broader substantive provision of Section 3(d), which excludes certain known substances, applies to all substances, including biochemicals like phytase.

The Court distinguished between synthetic and biochemical substances while ensuring that biochemicals still fall under the ambit of Section 3(d). This interpretation underscores the law’s intent to balance the exclusion of trivial inventions with the encouragement of innovation in biotechnology.

 

2. Does enhanced thermostability qualify as a "significant enhancement" of efficacy under Section 3(d)?

Efficacy under Section 3(d) depends on the context of the invention. For pharmaceuticals, the Supreme Court in Novartis AG v. Union of India held that efficacy refers to therapeutic efficacy. In this case, the appellant claimed that enhanced thermostability—a property allowing phytase to remain stable at high temperatures—improved the enzyme’s industrial utility in animal feed production.

The Assistant Controller argued that enhanced thermostability did not improve the enzyme’s primary function—catalyzing the hydrolysis of phytate. However, the Court noted that thermostability is a critical property for the enzyme's practical use in high-temperature environments like feed pelletization. Without this property, the enzyme would denature, losing its effectiveness in industrial applications.

The Court concluded that thermostability enhances the enzyme’s efficacy by expanding its utility in real-world conditions, even if it does not directly improve its enzymatic activity. This interpretation recognizes that efficacy is not limited to a substance’s core function but also includes enhancements that make it more applicable or valuable in practical settings.

 

3. Do the composition claims (claims 8–11) qualify as patentable under Section 3(e), or are they merely admixtures of known substances?

Section 3(e) excludes compositions from patentability if they are formed by the mere admixture of known substances without a synergistic effect. The appellant sought to patent compositions combining thermostable phytase variants with vitamins and minerals, arguing that these mixtures provided improved functionality in animal feed.

The Assistant Controller objected, stating that the compositions lacked synergy, as the combined ingredients functioned independently and did not produce a result greater than the sum of their individual effects. The Court agreed, noting that the appellant had not provided evidence to demonstrate how the combination created a novel or unexpected benefit.

By failing to establish a synergistic relationship among the ingredients, the composition claims fell within the exclusion under Section 3(e). The Court emphasized that without synergy, the mixture remains an aggregation of properties, which is insufficient to merit patent protection.

 

4. Do the compositions combining phytase variants with vitamins and minerals demonstrate synergy under Section 3(e)?

Synergy refers to the phenomenon where the combination of ingredients results in properties or effects that are greater than the sum of their individual contributions. The appellant argued that the inclusion of thermostable phytase variants with vitamins and minerals in animal feed improved bioavailability and stability.

However, the Court found no evidence to support this claim. The compositions did not exhibit any new or unexpected properties beyond those of the individual ingredients. The Assistant Controller’s position that the compositions were predictable and lacked inventiveness was upheld.

Without synergy, the Court concluded that the compositions could not be patented under Section 3(e). This reinforces the principle that merely combining known substances without a novel effect does not qualify for patent protection.

 

Judgment

The Madras High Court delivered a split judgment on Novozymes' appeal. It ruled that Section 3(d) could apply to biochemicals like phytase, and the enhanced thermostability of the phytase variants qualified as a significant enhancement of efficacy, making the variants patentable. However, under Section 3(e), the court upheld the rejection of claims 8–11, stating that they were merely admixtures of known ingredients (phytase, vitamins, and minerals) without demonstrating synergy or unexpected properties.

The court partially allowed the appeal: Claims 1–7 (related to the phytase variants) were deemed patentable, while claims 8–11 (composition claims) were rejected. The judgment clarified that improvements like thermostability can be considered enhancements of efficacy, while composition claims require synergy to be patentable under Section 3(e).[3]

 

Conclusion

In Novozymes v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, the Madras High Court addressed key issues regarding Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of the Patents Act, 1970, in relation to biotechnological inventions. The court ruled in favor of Novozymes for the phytase variants, acknowledging that the enhanced thermostability of the enzyme constituted a significant enhancement of efficacy under Section 3(d), making the variants patentable. This decision broadens the interpretation of "efficacy," recognizing that industrial applications like thermostability, especially in animal feed, qualify as an enhancement of efficacy, even without improving enzymatic activity.

However, the court upheld the rejection of composition claims (claims 8–11) under Section 3(e), ruling that they were simply admixtures of known substances and lacked synergy. The decision emphasizes the strict criteria for composition claims, underscoring the need for evidence that the combination creates new or enhanced properties beyond the sum of the individual ingredients.

Ultimately, the judgment clarifies the patentability of biotechnological innovations in India, distinguishing between innovations that enhance industrial functionality and compositions that require novel interactions to be eligible for protection. This ruling marks an important step in aligning patent law with advancements in biotechnology.

 

 

---

[1] Novozymes v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, CMA (PT) No. 33 of 2023, Indian Patent Application No. 5326/CHENP/2008 (Madras High Court 2023).

[2] Novozymes v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs, Legal Vidhiya (Oct. 10, 2023), Link.

[3] Madras High Court Verdict on Scope of Sections 3(d) and 3(e) of Patents Act, SCC Online (Oct. 10, 2023), Link

R v. Dudley & Stephens Case of 1884 - Case Analysis

FACTS OF THE CASE

The two defendants shipwrecked by a storm were forced to abandon their ship and were stranded in a small emergency boat with two others including a young cabin boy called Richard Parker. The boat drifted in the ocean and was considered to be more than 1,000 miles from land. After standing in the ocean for 18 days in which they went 7 without food and 5 without water, Stephen suggested that lots be drawn with the loser being put to death to provide food for the remaining to which Dulley agreed but the third man did not and the boy was too weak to voice his opinion. As the third man had not agreed, the defendants decided that it would be the boy they killed as he was close to death and had no family. Dudley and Stephens cut the boys throat with no resistance as he was ill. All three men fed on the boy and were rescued on the 20th day. On their return to England Dudley & Stephens were charged with the boy’s murder to which they argued that they would be dead if they hadn’t killed the boy.

ISSUES

1. Can necessity be claimed as a defense for murder?
2. If killing the boy saved 3 lives, is it self-defense?
3. Is cannibalism legal in UK?

ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES

   1.     Can necessity be claimed as a defense for murder?

 

Necessity means a pressing need for or to do something. Necessity cannot be a defense for directly harming another person. In this case, the two defendants decided that it was necessary to kill the boy to survive. This decision was made based on the fact that the boy was weak, an orphan and that they didn’t know when they would be rescued. Even though at first the defendants had agreed upon drawing lots to see who would die, they did not do that. It can be questioned if they thought that their life was more valuable than that of the boy and thus decided to kill him. It may have been essential to kill one person to survive, it is just immoral or unjust to kill the weakest and unresisting one. By killing the boy, the defendants took away his chances at survival while there was always a possible that they might have been rescued the next day. And there was also the fact that orphan or not he was still a young boy and had the right to see and experience the world just like the other men on the boat had done. Also, the concept of necessity should extend to everyone, not just the boy because he was in a disadvantageous position.

 

    2.     Was killing the boy self-defense?

 

Self-defense means the right to defend one's self against threat or attack by the use of reasonable force. Self-defense would have been applicable in this case only if the boy was posing a life threat, which he was not as he was weak and unresisting. The act of killing the boy was not self-defense. However, when Dulley was about to slit the boys throat, had he resisted and by mistake killed Dulley, that would have been self-defense.

3.      Is cannibalism legal in UK?

Cannibalism is the consumption of another human's body matter, with consent or not. The UK does not have a specific rule for or against cannibalism. On July 23, 1988, Rick Gibson ate the flesh of another person in public, because England does not have a specific law against cannibalism. He legally ate a canapé of donated human tonsils in Walthamstow High Street, London. What a person eats or wants to eat is his or her own wish and on one has the right to judge a person based on that. “There is no offence of cannibalism in our jurisdiction,” said Dr Samantha Pegg. However, cannibalism should not be practiced without the concern of the person who is being fed from.

 

JUDGMENT

The jury, at the instigation of the judge, found a special verdict, setting out the facts and leaving it to the court to decide whether the men were guilty of murder. In 1884, this procedure had long been neglected: it was specially revived for the occasion. By various procedural devices, it was decided to bring the case before a bench of five judges constituting the Queen’s Bench Division in London. It is believed that the special verdict was drafted by Baron Huddleston himself. They were found guilty of murder. They were sentenced to death but later their sentence was reduced to six months’ imprisonment. It was held that necessity is no defence for a crime but at the same time, the special verdict contained no finding as to whether it was "necessary" to sacrifice the life of the young boy.

 

CONCLUSION

Even though the act of killing the young boy and calling it a necessity or self-defense is not justifiable, the final judgment is. The defendants might or might not have been rescued when they were but the only reason they killed the boy was so that they could have a little longer to live with the hope that they might be rescued. Yes, it could have been one of them instead of the boy to die but it wasn’t and later they were saved. No one knows if the boy or anyone on the boat would have lived long enough to be rescued alive nor do they know what would have happened or who would have been killed next if they weren’t rescued. The defendants took a chance to keep them alive and it would have been worth it to them, because at the end of the day, they went back home alive to their family. The judgment gave the defendants 6 months’ jail time and this is acceptable because even though what they did was to keep them alive, they still took away the life of someone else.

Global Financial Crisis 2008

 

Financial crisis of 2007–08 is also called subprime mortgage crisis. The 2008 financial crisis was the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression of 1929. The collapse of Lehman Brothers, a sprawling global bank, in September 2008 almost brought down the world’s financial system. It took huge taxpayer-financed bail-outs to shore up the industry. It occurred despite the efforts of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Department of the Treasury. The crisis led to the Great Recession, where housing prices dropped more than the price plunge during the Great Depression. Two years after the recession ended, unemployment was still above 9%.

The Great Recession was a period of marked general decline observed in national economies globally that occurred between 2007–2009.

What caused the global financial crises? 

The Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, having already anticipated the mild recession that began in 2001, reduced the federal funds rate 11 times between May 2000 and December 2001, from 6.5 percent to 1.75 percent. This significant decrease enabled banks to give consumer credit at a lower prime rate and encouraged them to lend even to high-risk customers, though at higher interest rates. Consumers took advantage of the cheap credit to purchase durable goods such as automobiles, and houses. The result was the creation in the late 1990s of a housing bubble. 

The owing to the changes in banking laws beginning in the 1980s, banks were able to offer to subprime customer’s mortgage loans that were structured with balloon payments i.e, unusually large payments are due at or near the end of a loan period or adjustable interest. If home prices continued to increase, subprime borrowers could protect themselves against high mortgage payments by borrowing against the increased value of their homes or selling their homes at a profit. In the case of default, banks could repossess the property and sell it for more than the amount of the original loan. So, subprime lending represented a lucrative investment for many banks. And so many banks aggressively marketed subprime loans to customers with poor credit or few assets, knowing that those borrowers could not repay the loans and they also misleading them about the risks involved. As a result of this, the share of subprime mortgages among other home loans increased from about 2.5 percent to nearly 15 percent from the late 1990s to 2004–2007.

Contributing to the growth of subprime lending was the widespread practice of securitization, where banks bundled together hundreds of subprime mortgages and other less-risky forms of consumer debt and sold them in capital markets as bonds to investors, including hedge funds and pension funds. Bonds started being known as mortgage-backed securities, or MBSs, which guaranteed their purchasers to a share of the interest and principal payments on the underlying loans. Selling subprime mortgages as MBSs was said to be a good way for banks to increase liquidity and reduce risk exposure to loans. Purchasing MBSs was viewed as a good way for banks and investors to diversify their portfolios and earn money. As home prices continued to rise through the early 2000s, MBSs became widely popular, and their prices in capital markets increased accordingly.

In 1999 the Depression-era, Glass-Steagall Act 1933 was partially repealed which allowed banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to enter each other’s markets and merge, which resulted in the formation of banks that were “too big to fail”. In addition to this, in 2004 the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) weakened the net-capital requirement, which encouraged banks to invest even more money into MBSs. Even though the SEC’s decision resulted in enormous profits for banks, it exposed them to significant risk, because the asset value of MBSs was implicitly premised on the continuation of the housing bubble.

Lastly, the long period of global economic stability and growth that came right before the crisis, began in the mid to late 1980s and is known as the Great Moderation, this had convinced many government officials, economists, and U.S. banking executives that extreme economic volatility was something of the past. That confidents together with an ideological climate emphasizing deregulation and the ability of financial firms to check themselves, led almost all of them to ignore clear signs of an impending crisis and bankers to continue reckless lending, borrowing, and securitization practices.

This was a tough time for the world and even after the crises was over, the after effect lasted a long time.

Cryptocurrency

 

What is cryptocurrency?

Cryptocurrency is a digital medium of exchange that is secured by cryptography. This cryptograph makes it impossible to counterfeit or double spend. Many of these virtual currencies use decentralized networker based on blockchain technology which are organisational methods for ensuring the indignity and transparency of transactional data.

The word cryptocurrency is derived from encryption techniques which are used to secure networks.

Cryptocurrency is not controlled by any central authority; these currencies can be sent between two parties with the use of public or private keys and with minimal transaction fee.

When was cryptocurrency formed?

It was created during the 2008 financial crises as a way for people to be able to control their own money without depending on any financial institutes like banks. It was later launched in 2009 by an individual or a group of people that go by pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto.

Types of Cryptocurrency.

There are about 3,000 types of cryptocurrencies in existence at present with each one falling into the category of one of the three main virtual currencies ­– Altcoins, Tokens and Bitcoins.

•  Bitcoin (BTC)

Bitcoins are considered to be the first original cryptocurrencies created in 2009. Bitcoins were created in such a way that no one will have control over the currency but at the same time every transaction is transparent i.e. every transaction is stored in a massive distributed public ledger called the blockchain. The current value of 1 bitcoin in US Dollars is 10,786.30 and in Indian Rupees is 7,94,085.33. They have high liquidity making them great investment if you are looking for short term profits, they can also be used for long term investments as they have high market demand.

• Ethereum (ETH)

Ethereum is the second-largest cryptocurrency platform by market capitalization. It is a global decentralized platform for money that allows you to write codes to control your money. Ether is the cryptocurrency generated by Ethereum miners as a reward for computations performed to secure the blockchain. The current value of 1 Ether in US Dollars is 383.65 and in Indian Rupees is 28,189.26. Like other crypto assets, investing in Ethereum can be highly profitable and has a history of giving its investors high returns.

• Bitcoin Cash (BCH)

Bitcoin Cash is a cryptocurrency that is a fork of Bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash is an altcoin that was created in 2017. In 2018 Bitcoin Cash subsequently split into two cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV. Bitcoin Cash brings sound money to the world. Merchants and users are empowered with low fees and reliable confirmations. The current value of 1 BCH in US Dollars is 233.12 and in Indian Rupees is 17,097.06.

• Litecoin (LTC)

Litecoin is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency and open-source software project released under the MIT/X11 license. Litecoin was an early bitcoin spinoff or altcoin, started on October 2011. Litecoin has a supply limit of 84,000,000 LTC and was first started in 2011. The current value of 1 LTC in US Dollars is 48.31 and in Indian Rupees is 3,544.16. As Litecoin have has consistent growth in value from when it was started, it is definitely a strong performance investment and it has also always been on the top 10 crypto market list by market cap, a feat that not many other altcoins can claim.

• Ripple (XRP)

Ripple is a real-time gross settlement system, currency exchange and remittance network created by a US-based technology company called Ripple Labs Inc. Ripple was codded in C++ programming language and also uses blockchain. The current value of 1 XRP in US Dollars is 0.252074 and in Indian Rupees is 18.74. As the prices of Ripples are relatively low it becomes an easy option for those with small budgets. Ripple transactions are much faster and cheaper than those the Bitcoin network offers.

Conclusion

Cryptocurrency is a vast topic with a lot of components to it. It might not be the easiest topic to understand but if and when one does understand it, it can be fun investment with low fee and complete control over your money. This visual form of currency definitely has a future with us because of its blockchain network and the fact that it is not controlled by any central authority.