Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, comprising an association of Ayurvedic drug manufacturers and individual companies, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the applicability of Rule 17 of the Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 and the Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Benefits Sharing Regulations, 2014 to Indian entities. They sought a declaration that these provisions apply only to non-Indian entities, or alternatively, that they are ultra vires the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra, Maharashtra State Biodiversity Board, Union of India, and National Biodiversity Authority, raised a preliminary objection that the petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy under the Act. The court, after hearing arguments, dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that the petition raises substantial questions of law regarding the vires of subordinate legislation, making it maintainable. On the merits, the court examined the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and the rules framed thereunder. It noted that the Act does not distinguish between Indian and foreign entities for the purpose of access to biological resources. The court held that Rule 17 of the Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 applies to all entities, including Indian entities, as it is consistent with the objectives of the Act. Similarly, the Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Benefits Sharing Regulations, 2014 were held to apply to Indian entities. The court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the applicability of the impugned provisions to Indian entities.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Preliminary Objection - Maintainability of Writ Petition - The court considered a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The objection was based on the availability of an alternative remedy under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The court held that since the petition raises substantial questions of law regarding the vires of subordinate legislation, the writ petition is maintainable. (Paras 1-10) B) Biological Diversity - Access to Biological Resources - Applicability of Rules to Indian Entities - The court examined whether Rule 17 of the Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 applies to Indian entities. The petitioners argued that the rule should apply only to foreign entities. The court held that the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 does not make any distinction between Indian and foreign entities for the purpose of access to biological resources, and Rule 17 applies to all entities. (Paras 11-20) C) Biological Diversity - Benefit Sharing - Guidelines on Access and Benefit Sharing Regulations, 2014 - The court considered the applicability of the Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Benefits Sharing Regulations, 2014 to Indian entities. The court held that the regulations apply to Indian entities as they are consistent with the Act and do not exceed the rule-making power. (Paras 21-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 17 of the Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 and the Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Benefits Sharing Regulations, 2014 apply to Indian entities or only to non-Indian entities.
Final Decision
The preliminary objection regarding maintainability is dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. Rule 17 of the Biological Diversity Rules, 2004 and the Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Benefits Sharing Regulations, 2014 apply to Indian entities.
Law Points
- Rule 17 of Biological Diversity Rules
- 2004 applies to Indian entities
- Biological Diversity Act
- 2002 does not discriminate between Indian and foreign entities
- Guidelines on Access to Biological Resources and Associated Knowledge and Benefits Sharing Regulations
- 2014 apply to Indian entities
- Article 226 jurisdiction
- preliminary objection dismissed
