CJI Kant asks if US courts will treat Indian counterparts equally over Pfizer plea. Check why

Representing Pfizer, Senior Advocate Amit Sibal submitted that requests through Letters Rogatory are governed by the principle of reciprocity and international comity. (Representative image)

• Supreme Court questions enforcing US court's Letters Rogatory for Pfizer case
• India stresses sovereignty and reciprocity in cross-border judicial cooperation
• Pfizer to provide examples of foreign courts honoring Indian requests

Did our AI summary help?

The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed strong reservations about enforcing Letters Rogatory issued by a United States court at the behest of pharmaceutical major Pfizer, underlining that India would not sacrifice its sovereignty and questioning whether similar requests from Indian courts are treated with equal respect abroad.

A two-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, and also comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi, was hearing Pfizer’s appeal against a Madras High Court order that had refused to enforce the Letters Rogatory.

The documents sought relate to Pfizer’s request to obtain materials and testimony from Chennai-based Softgel Healthcare Pvt Ltd in connection with an alleged patent infringement dispute.

During the hearing, the CJI cautioned against what he perceived as a one-sided approach to international judicial cooperation.

“When you want to have information, you want to hijack information from any part of the globe. When the question of getting information from you comes, then you show your superiority. That’s the issue,” he observed.

The court made it clear that issuing notice in the case should not be read as an endorsement of Pfizer’s arguments. “It’s not that we are issuing notice because we are convinced with you, we are issuing notice for a different purpose,” the CJI said, adding, “We will not compromise with the sovereignty of our nation. You should be very clear.”

Pfizer relies on principle of reciprocity

Representing Pfizer, Senior Advocate Amit Sibal submitted that requests through Letters Rogatory are governed by the principle of reciprocity and international comity. According to him, courts in other jurisdictions respond positively when such requests originate from India.

The CJI, however, pressed Sibal on how consistently this principle is honoured by foreign authorities. “You are speaking of reciprocal only because of the Hague Convention. Question is, how are they honouring it?” the CJI asked.

Sibal responded that the arrangement “must be honoured on both sides” and assured the court that Pfizer would place examples to show that foreign courts have acted on Indian requests. He further stated, “We will come with examples…in India also, we have followed it in light of that reciprocity.”

Comity of courts and mutual respect

Emphasising India’s approach to cross-border judicial cooperation, the CJI remarked that Indian courts adhere to such requests out of principle rather than compulsion.

“In India, we follow because we believe in the comity of courts. We believe in mutual respect, and we believe in respecting the other’s sovereignty also,” he said.

The appeal stems from Pfizer’s challenge to the Madras High Court’s decision, which declined to assist in enforcing the US court’s request for evidence. While agreeing to issue notice and examine the broader issues raised, the Supreme Court signalled that questions of national sovereignty and genuine reciprocity would be central to its consideration.

The matter will now be taken up for further hearing, with Pfizer expected to place material to demonstrate how Indian judicial requests are treated by foreign courts and authorities.