International Association For Protection Of Intellectual Property (India Group) vs Union Of India

S. Ravindra Bhat, J

This judgement will dispose of an application by which directions are sought that till a new chairperson of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board

(hereafter referred to as “the board†or “IPABâ€), is appointed, the incumbent (whose tenure had been extended by interim orders of this

court, up to 31.12.2020) should continue to function as Chairperson.

The applicant (the International Association for Protection of Intellectual Property [India Group]) had preferred a Writ Petition (WP(C) 1431/2019),

which was disposed of by this court by a judgement along with a batch of other petitions and applications on 27th November 2020, in the judgement

reported as Madras Bar Association v Union of India (2020) SCC OnLine SC 962. The applicant seeks extension of the term of the incumbent

Chairperson of the board stating that his appointment was made under section 89A of the Trademarks Act, 1999 (“TM Act†hereafter). The

applicant urges that Section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017, prescribes the term of office and the conditions of service of Chairperson and members of

various tribunals including that of the Board. Section 161 of the Finance Act inserted Section 89A to the TM Act-which stipulates that the term of

office of appointments to the board after the date of commencement of the Finance Act would be governed by the provisions of the Section 184 of the

said Finance Act. The outer limit prescribing the age limit of the chairperson of the board is 70 years, in terms of Section 184.

It is contended that in the judgement in Rojer Mathew [Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd., (2020) 6 SCC 1.] this court had directed that

appointments made to the board preceding the rules framed in 2020 under the Finance Act within (hereafter the 2020 Rules) were governed by the

parent enactment. Reliance is placed on the relevant extract of the main judgement of this court in this regard (para 53 [xv]). It is stated that the

parent Act in this case is the Trademarks Act (hereafter the ‘TM Act’). In this context, it is contended that since the outer limit of the tenure of

the chairperson is 70 years under the parent Act, i.e. the TM Act, the age of 65 years contemplated under Section 86 of that Act no longer applies.

Learned counsel contrasts Section 86 and Section 89 of the TM Act and contends that though Section 86 on the one hand prescribes the outer age

limit (for the tenure of chairperson) as 65 years, that is over borne by the provisions of section 89A, which states that the terms and conditions hitherto

applicable would no longer be so and that in matters of conditions of service and tenure of appointment, the provisions of section 184 of the Finance

Act would apply. It is contended by senior counsel that the Rules were originally framed with effect from 01.06.2017, under which the present

incumbent was appointed. These rules were set aside by Rojer Mathew, in which all sitting members and chairpersons of various tribunals were

protected, till new rules were framed. The Rules framed in 2020, have now been substantially read down or quashed. The clarification that the present

incumbent, in fact, would continue to hold office in spite of attaining the age of 65 years, logically flows from the ruling in Madras Bar Association

(supra). A clarification of this is essential, given that in law, the outer limit has now been extended to 70 years. The attention of this court is also

drawn to para 53 (ix) of the judgement of this court dated 27th November 2020.

Learned counsel relied upon the said judgement. It was argued that the orders made by this court during the pendency of that case, till final

judgment, i.e. dated 27th of November, 2020 protected the tenures of all incumbent tribunal members and their chairpersons. Specific reliance was

placed upon the order dated 16th September 2020, which had extended the tenure of office of all incumbent members of all tribunals, to 31st

December, 2020. The applicant also urged that it is essential that there is continuity and that taking into consideration the workload of the board, it is

absolutely essential that it is headed by a properly qualified chairperson.

The learned senior counsel for applicant particularly relies on Section 84(2) of the TM Act and urges that there can be no bench without a judicial

member. It is submitted that at the moment none of the members of the board are judicial appointees, but rather are technical members. It is submitted

that the board does not even have a Vice-Chairman, who can in the absence of the Chairperson officiate as the acting Chairperson. Therefore, it is

imperative that the clarifications and directions sought should be granted.

The application was opposed on behalf of certain third parties who urge that this court should not grant the relief which the applicant seeks. In this

regard, it is pointed out that the tenure of office in terms of the order of appointment of the present incumbent to the office of chairperson of the board

clearly stipulated that the tenure for which he could continue to serve on the board was till 21stSeptember 2019. It is contended in this context that the

original appointment was made when the incumbent chairperson of the board was holding another office as chairperson of a quasi-judicial body. The

order of appointment, originally made in 2017, no doubt did not indicate a tenure; however according to applicable law (i.e. the Rules of 2017) the

maximum tenure was 3 years. However, that order was amended to specifically read that the order that the appointment would cease upon

completion of a specific date, i.e. 21.09.2019.

The third-party objectors also opposed the interpretation given to Section 86 and 89A. It was contended that the change brought about by section

89A was merely to indicate that the tenure of office of the chairperson and members would thenceforth (i.e. after the enactment and coming into

force of the Finance Act of 2017) be in accordance with Section 184 of the Finance Act. It is urged in this context that Section 184 does not ipso

facto prescribe or indicate any term of appointment or tenure, except to enumerate outer limits of tenure terms and maximum age for members or

chairpersons of tribunals to hold office. The legislation leaves the matter to the rules that were to be framed under the said Finance Act. It is

submitted in other words that, the Act per se does not prescribe any terms, but rather indicates outer limits. Since the entire conditions of service,

including the indicative tenure of office was to be prescribed in respect of each tribunal by the rules, even if for a moment, the applicant’s

contentions were to be understood as meaning that the incumbent was appointed first under the old rules of 2017, his term of office nevertheless

ended in September 2019. This was before the judgement in Rojer Matthew was delivered. This court in Rojer Matthew specifically stated that as the

then existing rules framed in 2017 were held to be unconstitutional, a window of continuing in office, in terms of the parent enactment, was applicable.

It is submitted that in the context of the present incumbent of the board, the tenure of office obviously could not have been extended since the outer

limit under the parent act was 65 years.

Relevant provisions

By virtue of the provisions of Part XIV of the Finance Act 2017, 25 (twenty-five) central enactments were amended so that, from the appointed

date, firstly, provisions relating to terms and conditions of service of the members of those tribunals were substituted with provisions allowing the

Central Government to specify the same with rules under the Finance Act. Secondly, eight existing tribunals established under different legislations

(specified in the Ninth Schedule) were abolished and their respective jurisdictions and powers were incorporated into seven existing tribunals, reducing

the number of tribunals from 26 to19. Thirdly, under Section 184 of the Finance Act, the Central Government was authorized to frame delegated

legislation (rules) spelling out the eligibility criteria, selection process, removal, salaries and allowances, tenure and other terms and conditions of

service for the remaining 19 tribunals (specified in the Eighth Schedule). The constitutional validity of Section 184 and the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal

and Other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience & Other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017 Rules (hereafter “the 2017 Rulesâ€)

was considered in a batch of writ petitions and appeals, of which judgment was rendered in Rojer Mathew v South Indian Bank Ltd. (supra).The

judgment, delivered by a bench of five judges, upheld Section 184. However, the 2017 Rules were held to be contrary to the constitutional scheme as

interpreted by several previous rulings of Constitution Benches. As a result of that judgment, the Central Government framed fresh rules in 2020

(hereafter “2020 Rulesâ€) which were again questioned in the Madras Bar Association case. The Madras Bar Association case is a sequel (to

Rojer Mathew), by which this court considered and pronounced upon the validity of the 2020 Rules, and read down several of them.

The relevant provisions of the Finance Act, 2017 are as follows:

“Section 161. In the Trade Marks Act, 1999â€

(a) for the word ""Chairman"" or ""Vice-Chairman"", wherever it occurs, the word ""Chairperson"" or ""Vice-Chairperson"" shall be substituted;

(b) in section 83, after the words ""under this Act"", the words and figures ""and under the Copyright Act, 1957"" shall be inserted;

(c) after section 89, the following section shall be inserted, namely: â€

89A. Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the qualifications, appointment, term of office, salaries and allowances, resignation, removal

and other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson, Vice- Chairperson and other Members of the Appellate Board appointed after

the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017, shall be governed by the provisions of section 184 of that Act:

Provided that the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and other Members appointed before the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the

Finance Act, 2017, shall continue to be governed by the provisions of this Act, and the rules made thereunder as if the provisions of section

184 of the Finance Act, 2017, had not come into force."".

Sections 183 and 184 occur in Part S of the Finance Act, 2017 and read as follows:

“S.â€"CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF TRIBUNALS, APPELLATE TRIBUNALS AND

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the provisions of the Acts specified in column (3) of the Eighth Schedule, on and

from the appointed day, provisions of section 184 shall apply to the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Chairman, Vice- Chairman, President,

Vice-President, Presiding Officer or Member of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, other Authorities as specified in

column (2) of the said Schedule:

Provided that the provisions of section 184 shall not apply to the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, President,

Vice-President, Presiding Officer or, as the case may be, Member holding such office as such immediately before the appointed day.

Qualifications, terms and conditions of service of Chairperson and Member.

Qualifications, terms and conditions of service of Chairperson, Judicial Member and Expert Member.

(1) The Central Government may, by notification, make rules to provide for qualifications, appointment, term of office, salaries and

allowances, resignation, removal and the other terms and conditions of service of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Chairman, Vice-

Chairman, President, Vice-President, Presiding Officer or Member of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, other

Authorities as specified in column (2) of the Eighth Schedule:

Provided that the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, President, Vice-President, Presiding Officer or Member of the

Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal or other Authority shall hold office for such term as specified in the rules made by the Central Government but

not exceeding five years from the date on which he enters upon his office and shall be eligible for reappointment:

Provided further that no Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, President, Vice- President, Presiding Officer or

Member shall hold office as such after he has attained such age as specified in the rules made by the Central Government which shall not

exceedâ€

(a) in the case of Chairperson, Chairman or President, the age of seventy years;

(b) in the case of Vice-Chairperson, Vice-Chairman, Vice-President, Presiding Officer or any other Member, the age of sixty-seven years:

(2) Neither the salary and allowances nor the other terms and conditions of service of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, Chairman, Vice-

Chairman, President, Vice-President, Presiding Officer or Member of the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal or, as the case may be, other

Authority may be varied to his disadvantage after his appointmentâ€​

In Rojer Mathew after pronouncing that the 2017 Rules were unsustainable, and quashing them, with a direction to the Central Government to

frame new Rules, this court also directed as follows:

“Interim relief

As the Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and Other Authorities (Qualification, Experience and Other Conditions of Service of Members)

Rules, 2017 have been struck down and several directions have been issued vide the majority judgment for framing of fresh set of rules, we,

as an interim order, direct that appointments to the Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal and the terms and conditions of appointment shall be in

terms of the respective statutes before the enactment of the Finance Bill, 2017. However, liberty is granted to the Union of India to seek

modification of this order after they have framed fresh rules in accordance with the majority judgment. However, in case any additional

benefits concerning the salaries and emoluments have been granted under the Finance Act, they shall not be withdrawn and will be

continued. These would equally apply to all new Members.â€​

The board has been set up by Section 83 of the TM Act to exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority conferred on it by or under that

enactment. Section 84 prescribes the composition of the board, which consists of a chairperson, a vice chairperson “and such number of other

Members, as the Central Government may deem fit and, subject to the other provisions of this Act, the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the

Appellate Board may be exercised by Benches thereof.â€​

Sections 84 (2) and (3) are of some relevance in the present context; they read as follows:

“(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Bench shall consist of one Judicial Member and one Technical Member and shall sit at

such place as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), the 2 [Chairperson]â€

(a) may, in addition to discharging the functions of the Judicial Member or Technical Member of the Bench to which he is appointed,

discharge the functions of the Judicial Member or, as the case may be, the Technical Member, of any other Bench;

(b) may transfer a Member from one Bench to another Bench;

(c) may authorise the Vice-Chairperson, the Judicial Member or the Technical Member appointed to one Bench to discharge also the

functions of the Judicial Member or the Technical Member, as the case may be, of another Bench.

Sections 86 and 87 read as follows:

“86. Term of office of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and other Members.â€"The Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson or other Members

shall hold office as such for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains,â€

(a) in the case of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson, the age of sixty-five years; and

(b) in the case of a Member, the age of sixty-two years, whichever is earlier.

Vice-Chairperson] or senior-most Member to act as 1 [Chairperson] or discharge his functions in certain circumstancesâ€

(1) In the event of or any vacancy in the office of the Chairperson by reasons of his death, resignation or otherwise, the Vice-Chairperson

and in his absence the senior-most Member shall act as Chairperson until the date on which a new 1 Chairperson, appointed in accordance

with the provisions of this Act to fill such vacancy, enters upon his office.

(2) When the Chairperson is unable to discharge his functions owing to his absence, illness or any other cause, the Vice-Chairperson and in

his absence the senior-most Member shall discharge the functions of the Chairperson until the date on which the Chairperson resumes his

duty.â€​

Section 89A of the TM Act reads as follows:

“89A. Qualifications, terms and conditions of service of Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and Member.â€"Notwithstanding anything in

this Act, the qualifications, appointment, term of office, salaries and allowances, resignation, removal and other terms and conditions of

service of the Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson and other Members of the Appellate Board appointed after the commencement of Part XIV of

Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017 (7 of 2017), shall be governed by the provisions of section 184 of that Act:

Provided that the Chairperson, Vice- Chairperson and other Members appointed before the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the

Finance Act, 2017 (7 of 2017), shall continue to be governed by the provisions of this Act, and the rules made thereunder as if the

provisions of section 184 of the Finance Act, 2017, had not come into forceâ€​

The present incumbent to the office of Chairperson of the Board was appointed as the Chairman, Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property

(ATFP). The terms and conditions under which he was appointed have not been placed on record; however, it appears that the appointment was soon

after he demitted office as Judge of the Delhi High Court, sometime after September 2016. On 26.07.2017, he was also given the additional charge of

the Chairman in the IPAB, i.e. the Board, in terms of the then extant 2017 Rules, for a period of three years â€" or until further orders, whichever

was earlier. The said order of 20.07.2017 is extracted below:

F. No.P-24017/44/2017-IPR-I Government of India

Ministry of Commerce & Industry

Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion

IPR â€" I section

Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi â€" 110 011

ORDER

The President of India is pleased to appoint Justice (Retd.) Manmohan Singh, Chairman, Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property to the

post of Chairman, in the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), Chennai, in the scale of pay as prescribed in the Tribunal, Appellate

Tribunals and other Authorities (Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members) Rules, 2017, for a period of three

years with effect from the date of assumption of charge to the post, or until further orders, whichever is the earlier.

(B.S. Nayak)

Under Secretary to the Govt. of India

Tel: 23061257â€​

The order of appointment â€" as Chairperson of the Board â€" was amended on 29.12.2017 by the Central Government. This later order stated

that the tenure of his appointment as Chairman of the Board was upto 21.09.2019 or till further orders, whichever was earlier. The later order of

29.12.2017 reads as follows:

“No. P-24017/44/2017-IPR-I

Government of India

Ministry of Commerce & Industry

Department of Industrial Policy &

(IPR â€" Establishment Section)

***

Udyog Bhavan, New Delhi-110 011,

Dated 29th December, 2017

ORDER

In supersession of this Department’s earlier order dated 20th July, 2017, the President of India is pleased to entrust the additional

charge of the post of Chairman, Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) to Justice (Retd.) Manmohan Singh, Chairman, Appellate

Tribunal for Forfeited Property (ATFP) in addition to his current duties from the date of assumption of charge of the post up to 21.09.2019

i.e. till his tenure on the post of chairmen, ATFP or until further orders, whichever is earlier.â€​

(B.S. Nayak)

Under Secretary to the Govt. of India

Tel: 23061257â€​

The judgment in Rojer Mathew by the five judge Constitution Bench was delivered on 13.11.2019. That judgment pronounced upon the validity of

the 2017 Rules and quashed them. However, before the 2017 Rules were declared unconstitutional, the tenure of the incumbent to the office of the

Chairperson of the Board ended on 21.09.2019. This Court recollects that the operation of the 2017 Rules had not been suspended during the

pendency of the petitions challenging them (i.e. Rojer Mathew batch of cases). During the pendency of the said batch of petitions, this court had

occasion to issue a series of interim orders. The order dated 20.03.2018 clarified a previous order (dated 09.02.2018 (in Kudrat Sandhu v. Union of

India WP 279/2017) as follows:

“(iii) The tenure of the Chairperson and the Judicial/Administrative/Expert/Technical Members of all the Tribunals shall be for a period

of five years or the maximum age that was fixed/determined under the old Acts and Rules;â€​

On 16.07.2018 [Reported as Kudrat Sandhu v Union of India 2018 SCC Online 1335 (SC)], the following directions in regard to the age of the

superannuation of Member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT)were made:

“At this juncture, we may note that there is some confusion with regard to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) as regards the age

of superannuation. We make it clear that the person selected as Member of the ITAT will continue till the age of 62 years and the person

holding the post of President, shall continue till the age of 65 years.â€​

In the same petition, the court had occasion to again clarify the previous orders, in the context of the President and Members of the Customs

Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). It was expressly stated that the tenure of members would be upto their attaining the age of 62

and, in the case of the President (of CESTAT) the tenure age limit would be 65 years. [This order is reported as Kudrat Sandhu v Union of India 2018

(18) SCC 796]

Given these circumstances, the arguments advanced on behalf of the applicant that the incumbent chairperson continued to remain in office in

view of the declaration of law by Rojer Mathew, is insubstantial and cannot be countenanced. The other reason for not accepting this contention is

that if, for a moment it were to be assumed that in terms of the interim arrangement directed by the majority judgment in Rojer Mathew (in para 224

extracted above), the appointments to Tribunals/Appellate Tribunals were to be “in terms of the respective statutes before the enactment of the

Finance Bill, 2017..â€, the amendments brought about through Sections 184, in terms of the maximum age up to which any Member or Chairperson

can hold office in a Tribunal could not apply in the case of the Board. This is because the Rules of 2017 had fixed the tenure limits of chairpersons and

members of tribunals, including that of the chairperson of the board. [By S. No.12, Column 5 had fixed the tenure of Chairperson, Vice

Chairman/Judicial Members of the Board at 3 years and indicated that the outer limit for the tenure of Chairperson would be 67 years whereas that of

the Vice Chairman and Members would be 65 years.] In terms of those Rules, (i.e., the rules of 2017) the tenure of the present incumbent ended on

21.09.2019. As noticed earlier, the rules were ultimately struck down only on 13.11.2019. At that time, the only order prevailing, which had directed

status quo with respect to tenure and age limits for members and chairpersons of various tribunals, were the interim orders and clarifications in Kudrat

Sandhu, dated 09.02.2018; 20.03.2018; 16.07.2018 and 21.08.2018. These had stated that the maximum tenure of such members or chairpersons

would be as stipulated in the parent enactments, before the coming into force of the Finance Act, 2017, or were expressed to be for a maximum of 3

years, in the case of chairpersons. The period had ended, so far as the applicant is concerned, on 21.09.2019.

Another argument urged by the applicant was that the Finance Act, 2017 had inserted Section 89A of the TM Act, (introduced by Section 161 of

the former Act) which states that the tenure of office and maximum age of retirement would be governed by the terms of the said Finance Act and,

consequently, the pre-existing tenure and age limits did not apply. Undoubtedly, the purport of Section 89A was to overbear or supersede the pre-

existing age and tenure limits (the existing tenure and age limits have been indicated in Section 86 of the TM Act). However, the Finance Act merely

stipulates the potential maximum age limits and tenure limits. In the case of Chairpersons, the maximum age limit prescribed was seventy years (by

virtue of second proviso to Section 184 [1]). However, by virtue of the first proviso to Section 184 (1), members or chairpersons could be appointed

“for such term as specified in the rules made by the Central Government but not exceeding five years from the date on which he enters upon his

officeâ€. Thus, the outer limit of the tenure was five years. As noticed earlier, the Central Government had fixed the tenure of chairperson of the

board to be three years. By the time this rule was held unconstitutional, the tenure of the incumbent holding office of chairperson, of the board ended,

on 21.09.2019. The final judgment in Rojer Mathew, could not have per se been applied to the facts of this case. The applicant’s contentions in

this regard are of no avail; it is after the judgment in Madras Bar Association (supra) that the tenure has been mandated to be five years. It is to be

noticed that even the 2020 Rules did not prescribe the maximum tenure; it rather confined the tenure to four years. In the facts of this case, even if

that were to be applied â€" assuming such a course to be available, the four-year period too ended on 21.09.2020. It is important to notice that the

changes brought about in the tenure and age limits were not only through the Schedule to the Finance Act, 2017, but also through its substantive

provisions - Sections 156 to 182. [In a part entitled PART XIV AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN ACTS TO PROVIDE FOR MERGER OF

TRIBUNALS AND OTHER AUTHORITIES AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF CHAIRPERSONS, MEMBERS, ETC.] These provisions

introduced changes relating to tenure and age limits for members and chairpersons of 19 tribunals (including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal;

Securities Appellate Tribunal, Competition Commission of India, CESTAT, Railway Claims Tribunal, Central Administrative Tribunal, Debt Recovery

Tribunal, Debt Recoveries Appellate Tribunals, the IPAB -i.e. the Board, in this case, etc.). All these provisions, much like Section 89A of the TM

Act, aligned Parliamentary intention to legislate uniform tenure limits and maximum age for members and chairpersons. Therefore, Section 89A is only

part of the entire legislative design. However, that has no bearing on the circumstances of the present case.

The last contention which this court has to deal with is the applicant’s position that the Board cannot function without a judicial member, and

that at present, only the incumbent Chairperson is a judicial member, and that if his tenure is not extended by a judicial order, the Board would be

unable to function. Subsidiary to this argument is that no member can function as a Chairperson, as none of the existing members are judicial

members, but are technical members.

The submissions of the applicant, in the opinion of this court, are meritless. Section 84 (2) of the TM Act no doubt states that a bench of the board

shall consist of a judicial and a technical member. However, it is “subject to other provisions†of the TM Act. Section 84(3) commences with a

non obstante clause and stipulates, by Section 84(3)(a) that a chairperson may, “in addition to discharging the functions of the Judicial Member or

Technical Member of the Bench to which he is appointed, discharge the functions of the Judicial Member or, as the case may be, the Technical

Member, of any other Bench.†Thus, in the absence of any member, the chairperson may, if the occasion so arises, act as technical or judicial

member. Section 87 enables a vice-chairperson, or as the case may be the senior-most member of the board to act as chairperson in the event of a

vacancy to that position, or in the event of the incumbent’s inability to function in the post. Furthermore, significantly, Section 85 inter alia

stipulates the qualifications for the post of chairperson or vice-chairperson.

The relevant provisions of this section (extracted below)reveal that there is no bar for a technical member to be appointed as a regular chairperson,

provided she or he has for “at least two years, held the office of a Vice-Chairpersonâ€. In fact, the incumbent five technical members all hold legal

qualifications [These particulars are available at the website of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board website

https://www.ipab.gov.in/technical_members_page.php?id=2 (accessed at 23:35 hours on 04.02.2021)] (three of them holding masters in law, including

one who holds a post-doctoral qualification). Four of these incumbent members were practising advocates in specialized fields of intellectual property

(trademarks, and copyright) and one technical member (patents) had experience in the Patent Office. These members had practical legal experience

of ten to fifteen years. The fact that they were appointed as technical members cannot obfuscate the fact that they are legally trained and qualified.

Therefore, the argument that the technical members, in their position at the board as of now, cannot function without a chairperson, is unsustainable.

Qualifications for appointment as Chairperson, Vice-Chairperson, or other Members.â€

(1) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Chairperson unless heâ€

(a) is, or has been, a Judge of a High Court; or

(b) has, for at least two years, held the office of a 3 [Vice-Chairperson.

(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as the Vice-Chairperson, unless heâ€

(a) has, for at least two years, held the office of a Judicial Member or a Technical Member; or

(b) has been a Member of the Indian Legal Service and has held a post in Grade I of that Service or any higher post for at least five years.

(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Judicial Member, unless heâ€

(a) has been a member of the Indian Legal Service and has held the post in Grade I of that Service for at least three years; or

(b) has, for at least ten years, held a civil judicial office.

(4) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as a Technical Member, unless heâ€

(a) has, for at least ten years, exercised functions of a tribunal under this Act or under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (43 of

1958), or both, and has held a post not lower than the post of a Joint Registrar for at least five years; or

(b) has, for at least ten years, been an advocate of a proven specialised experience in trade mark law.

In view of the above conclusions, this court holds that the applicant cannot be granted any relief. The application is accordingly dismissed; there

shall, however, be no order on costs.