When Letters Rogatory Collide with India’s Sovereignty—Madras High Court Draws the Line s. Dhaaranee Karunakaran In a significant ruling that reinforces India’s sovereign power video
[28/11, 15:38] Sekarreporter:
[29/11, 09:22] Sekarreporter: [28/11, 15:38] Sekarreporter: https://youtu.be/ivX0l8IThbo?si=slBgpgJOAlpHeREV
[29/11, 09:22] Sekarreporter: #MadrasHighCourt rejects Letters Rogatory (a request for international judicial assistance) issued by a court in the United States for securing evidence from a Chengalpattu based pharma company in a patent dispute between Pfizer & Cipla @THChennai
When Letters Rogatory Collide with India’s Sovereignty—Madras High Court
Draws the Line
s. Dhaaranee Karunakaran
In a significant ruling that reinforces India’s sovereign power over cross-border judicial requests, the Madras High Court has set aside an order permitting enforcement of Letters Rogatory (LRs) issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The case arose from a patent infringement dispute involving Pfizer Inc. and its blockbuster drug Tafamidis (marketed as Vyndamax), with Indian manufacturer Softgel Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. caught in the crossfire.
The International Backdrop
Pfizer is litigating in the United States against Cipla and Hikma/Zenara, alleging that their Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) were filed before expiry of Pfizer’s U.S. Patent No. 9,777,0441. During discovery, Cipla and Zenara disclosed that Softgel Healthcare, based in Tamil Nadu, was their contract manufacturer. This prompted the U.S. court to issue Letters Rogatory on 13 May 2024, seeking detailed documents, testing data, and depositions from Softgel.
Pfizer then approached the Madras High Court in O.P.(PT). Nos. 5 & 6 of 2024 seeking appointment of a commissioner, constitution of a confidentiality club, and execution of the LRs. The Single Judge allowed the plea. Softgel appealed.
The Core Issue
The Division Bench faced the central question:
Can Indian courts enforce Letters Rogatory that effectively demand pre-trial discovery from a third party, especially when India has expressly reserved its right not to execute such requests under Article 23 of the Hague Evidence Convention?
Why the Appeal Succeeded
The Bench of Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar allowed Softgel’s appeal and dismissed Pfizer’s petitions, laying down key principles that strengthen India’s control over foreign legal requests.
1. India’s Article 23 Declaration is Binding
India is a signatory to the Hague Convention but has expressly refused to execute pre-trial discovery requests through a declaration under Article 23.
The Court held that this declaration is not a mere formality—it must guide Indian courts when considering LRs, especially where the request mimics Americanstyle discovery.
2. Letters Rogatory Lacked Specificity (Violation of Article 3)
The LR sought extensive categories of documents:
Testing data
Polymorphism analyses
Internal communications
Manufacturing details
Batch-level scientific results
The Court found the requests vague, broad, and omnibus, violating Article 3, which mandates specificity in identifying witnesses, documents, and subject matter.
3. Softgel Has the Right to Refuse Under Article 11
Since the drug patent in question (TAFAMIDIS) has been rejected by the Indian Patent Office, compelling Softgel to disclose proprietary data could prejudice its rights under Indian law.
The Court held that Softgel could legitimately refuse to give evidence if:
It violates domestic legal privileges, or
It prejudices national sovereignty (Article 12(b)).
4. Domestic Law (CPC Order XXVI Rules 19–22) Requires Judicial Caution
While Indian courts can execute LRs, such power must be harmonised with:
Sovereignty concerns
India’s treaty reservations
Pending domestic litigation on the same subject
Since Pfizer’s Indian patent application is under appeal, enforcement of LRs could amount to indirectly obtaining advantages denied under Indian law.
5. The Case Was a Clear Attempt at Pre-trial Evidence Fishing
The Court held that Pfizer attempted a “roving enquiry” and “fishing expedition” by seeking discovery from a non-party in India instead of exhausting remedies against the actual defendants (Cipla and Zenara) in the U.S.
The Verdict
The Madras High Court:
Allowed the appeals (LPA Nos. 17 & 18 of 2025)
Set aside the Single Judge’s order dated 28.01.2025
Dismissed the Letters Rogatory execution petitions
Directed that no costs be awarded
Why This Judgment Matters
1. Strong Protection for Indian Pharma Manufacturers
Indian contract manufacturers often service global markets. This ruling shields them from intrusive litigation fishing expeditions arising out of foreign patent disputes.
2. Reinforces India’s Treaty Reservations
The Bench emphasises that Indian courts must uphold India’s Article 23 declaration and protect sovereignty when evaluating LRs.
3. Clarifies Limits of Foreign Discovery in India
This judgment will likely guide courts when foreign litigants seek broad, U.S.style pre-trial discovery in India.
4. Prevents Circumvention of Domestic Patent Law
Pfizer’s Indian patent application was rejected. Allowing LRs would indirectly give it advantages denied under Indian law.
Conclusion
The ruling is a robust assertion of India’s sovereign judicial autonomy. While India honours international cooperation, it will not do so at the cost of compromising:
Domestic legal safeguards
Confidential commercial information
Treaty-based protections
The rights of non-parties
In the growing arena of cross-border IP battles, this judgment provides muchneeded clarity and insulation to Indian entities facing foreign legal processes.
[29/11, 09:22] Sekarreporter: [28/11, 15:38] Sekarreporter: https://youtu.be/ivX0l8IThbo?si=slBgpgJOAlpHeREV
[29/11, 09:22] Sekarreporter: #MadrasHighCourt rejects Letters Rogatory (a request for international judicial assistance) issued by a court in the United States for securing evidence from a Chengalpattu based pharma company in a patent dispute between Pfizer & Cipla @THChennai
[29/11, 09:22] Sekarreporter: [28/11, 15:38] Sekarreporter: https://youtu.be/ivX0l8IThbo?si=slBgpgJOAlpHeREV
[29/11, 09:22] Sekarreporter: #MadrasHighCourt rejects Letters Rogatory (a request for international judicial assistance) issued by a court in the United States for securing evidence from a Chengalpattu based pharma company in a patent dispute between Pfizer & Cipla @THChennai
[29/11, 09:24] Sekarreporter: “Core Issue
The Division Bench faced the central question:
Can Indian courts enforce Letters Rogatory that effectively demand pre-trial discovery from a third party, especially when India has expressly reserved its right not to execute such requests under Article 23 of the Hague Evidence Convention?
Why the Appeal Succeeded
The Bench of Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar allowed Softgel’s appeal and dismissed Pfizer’s petitions, laying down key principles that strengthen India’s control over foreign legal requests.
1. India’s Article 23 Declaration is Binding
India is a signatory to the Hague Convention but has expressly refused to execute pre-trial discovery requests through a declaration under Article 23.”
[29/11, 09:24] Sekarreporter: [28/11, 15:38] Sekarreporter: https://youtu.be/ivX0l8IThbo?si=slBgpgJOAlpHeREV
[29/11, 09:24] Sekarreporter: “Core Issue
The Division Bench faced the central question:
Can Indian courts enforce Letters Rogatory that effectively demand pre-trial discovery from a third party, especially when India has expressly reserved its right not to execute such requests under Article 23 of the Hague Evidence Convention?
Why the Appeal Succeeded
The Bench of Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar allowed Softgel’s appeal and dismissed Pfizer’s petitions, laying down key principles that strengthen India’s control over foreign legal requests.
1. India’s Article 23 Declaration is Binding
India is a signatory to the Hague Convention but has expressly refused to execute pre-trial discovery requests through a declaration under Article 23.”
