IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

SPECIAL DIVISION BENCH

IN THE MATTER OF:

Writ Petition No. 12/2016
(Filed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India)

Mr. Ram Rahim Joseph )

Age:49 Years )
R/o: Nagpur, Maharashtra )
Occupation: Service ) …..(Petitioner
AND
Indian Medical Association
AND
Medical Council of India

AND

Competition Commission of India

Versus
Devil’s Cure Inc )
)
AND )
) …..(Respondent
BAARISH PVT LTD

AND

Ethics Committee of Government Owned and

Controlled Medical College and Hospital at Sonegaon

AND

Dr. MR. Tea

AND

Dr. Ms. Coffee

Most Respectfully Submitted before the Special Division Bench of High Court of Judicature
at Bombay

Written submission on behalf of the Petitioner

Sd/-
Counsel for the Petitioner
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Sr. No TOPIC NAME PAGE NO.

1 Cover Page 01

2 Table of Contents 02

3 Index of Abbreviations 03

3 Index of Authorities 04

5 Statement of Jurisdiction 05

6 Statement of Facts 06

7 Statement of Issues 07

8 Summary of Arguments 08

9 Arguments Advanced 09-10

10 Prayer 11

INDEX OF ABBREVATIONS
Abbreviations Full Form

Cl. Civil
Cr. Criminal
Appl. Appeal
w.p. Writ Petition
Rev. Revision
Mr. Mister
Vs. Versus
Govt. Government
SCC Supreme Court Case
& At the rate
AIR All India reporter
FIR First Information report
Hon’ble Honorable
OR‟s Others
CICL children in conflict with the law
CRC Committee on the Rights of the Child
Pg. Page
IHRL International human rights law
UOI Union of India
Anr. Another
Mrs. Misses
Ccr. Current criminal report
Ed. Edition
ILR Indian law reporter
l.j. Law journal
Re. Reference
Sd/- Signed

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Statues referred:
1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
4. Article 21 in The Constitution of India 1949
5. Article 14 in The Constitution of India 1949
6. Article 19(1)(g) in The Constitution of India 1949
7. Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954
8. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
9. Seventh Schedule (Article 246) List I—Union List in The Constitution of India 1949
10. Seventh Schedule (Article 246) List II—Union List in The Constitution of India 1949
11. Seventh Schedule (Article 246) List III—Union List in The Constitution of India 1949

Case law:
1. Mrs.S.Bagavathy vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 2 March, 2007
2. M/S.Ags Entertainment Private ... vs Union Of India on 26 June, 2013
3. M/S. Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 31 March, 2022
4. Mahatma Gandhi Charitable & vs State of Kerala
5. Triveniben vs State of Gujarat and Ors. on 5 May, 1989

Website:
1. www.clpr.org.in
2. www. Lawinsider.com
3. www.indianlawportal.com
4. www.supremecourtcases.com
5. www.indiankanoon.com
6. www.manupatra.com
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

This Hon’ble Special Division Bench of High Court of Bombay has the jurisdiction to try,
entertain and dispose of the present case by virtue of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the
Constitution of India, 1950, Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act,
1954 and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. Ram Rahim Joseph (RRJ) is a Indian Citizen who has been living in the city of
Nagpur and on 25th December 2014, owing to Christmas, RRJ was celebrating
Christmas at a social function During the function, RRJ suffered a small paralytic
attack, which came to be diagnosed on 26th December 2014 as a neoplasm. RRJ was
getting treated in the Government Owned and Controlled Medical College and
Hospital at Sonegaon, (GOCMCHS)

2. RRJ was critical and also that in order to save RRJ’s live some drugs which are not
normally available within India would have to be administered, though their efficacy
in RRJ’s case was questionable one of the doctors happened to mention this to Mr.
Matrix, in the presence of the other doctor. Mr. Matrix owns and controls a huge
pharmaceutical company which is engaged in research and designing of new drugs as
well as manufacturing them.

3. During research, it came to be known that the special type of tumour that Mr. RRJ
was suffering from is in fact curable by 100 % when a combination of specific drugs
is administered to him. However, the said research was merely done via using
computer stimulation and no animate objects were tested with this finding.
Subsequently, Devil’s Cure Inc., Mr. Matrix’s company, applied to the licensing
authority for permission to manufacture this new combination drug by making
necessary payments as well by doing necessary paper work. However, the data as is
required to be submitted under clause (2) of the relevant section of the Drugs and
Cosmetics Act, 1940 did not come to be submitted. The entire procedure came to be
done on 2nd February 2015. The said application came to be rejected on 3 rd February
2015.

4. Thereafter, on 4th, the next day, an application came to be made for conducting
clinical trials. The said application came to be allowed. That, Devil’s Cure Inc. sought
the tests to be conducted at GOCMCHS. The same request was also allowed. The said
trials at GOCMCHS were approved conditionally.

5. RRJ was one of the subjects who was tested with the said newly prepared
combination drug due to complications arising in treatment, the DNA of RRJ
underwent a small change, which resulted in his ability to do loco motor movements
of the last toe of the left leg being hampered. Unfortunately, the situation and
condition of RRJ as demonstrated also required for administration of Imatinib
Mesylate, which is a therapeutic drug for chronic myeloid leukemia, the sole
marketing rights for which, then, due to some interim orders were with another
company called as Baarish, whose drugs came to be known to the Doctors and Mr.
Matrix’s company by way of their “coming soon” teasers, claiming cure to the said
disease. Since, the drugs of Baarish were also under trials, with due permission from
the Ethical Committee in Indian Institute for Medical Sciences (IIMS), it became
mandatory for Devil’s Cure Inc. to add Baarish as a co-applicant in its application for
permission of clinical trials, by way of an amendment. The said amendment was
permitted.
6. Being aggrieved by this utter hopelessness, RRJ filed a criminal proceeding against
both the Doctors - cardiothoracic surgeon and neurosurgeon – Dr.Mr. Tea and Dr.Ms.
Coffee alleging medical negligence and consequent attempt to murder, grievous hurt,
hurt, bodily harm, et cetera. That, RRJ, through his relative – Akku Yadav also filed a
proceeding before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on the same
grounds of medical negligence claiming a compensation of Rs. 8,00,00,000/- (Rupees
Eight Crores Only). That, RRJ also filed a Writ Petition before the Nagpur Bench of
the Bombay High Court praying that he should be granted a permanent sum of money
for the harassment done to him on account of those medical trials out of the funds and
proceeds of the income of the pharmaceutical companies as his share and contribution
to the drugs being sold in the market cannot be negated. The said Writ Petition was
dismissed. The Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench is pending.
Additionally, another proceeding was also filed by RRJ against Dr.Mr. Tea and
Dr.Ms. Coffee alleging breach of confidentiality and breach of right to privacy as his
medical details were leaked to Mr. Matrix, without his consent.

7. That, Baarish Pvt. Ltd. filed a infringement of patent suit against Devil’s Cure Inc.
before the Principal Civil Judge of Original Jurisdiction at Nagpur claiming that since
they were co-applicants in the application for medical trials, the combination drugs
cannot be exploited by Devil’s Cure Inc. alone. In addition, they sought sharing of
license / grant of compulsory licensing in their favour from the IPAB at Mumbai.

8. In the meantime, due to a lot of publicity / newspaper reports, Causes in Common, a

very reputed NGO based in New Delhi, filed an application under Section 6(1) of the
Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, in the nature of a PIL

9. All these counter litigations drew the attention of the Medical Council of India and
they approached the Supreme Court for appointing a special judge for deciding all the
litigations together, regardless of jurisdictions, (territorial, pecuniary or otherwise),
regardless of hierarchy of judges, et cetera. Considering the same to be a one of
special case, and falling under the rarest of rare cases.

10. The composite matter is fixed for final arguments before the Special Division Bench
in RRJ, MCI, IMA, CiC (versus) Devil’s Cure Inc., Baarish Pvt. Ltd., Ethics
Committee of GOCMCHS and Dr.Mr. Tea and Dr.Ms. Coffee, where all the above
mentioned issues are sufficiently proved and other medical terms are to be covered
using documentary evidence at the stage of final arguments. The said writ petition is
listed for arguments on 6th March 2016 as per High Court website.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

1. That the provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable

Advertisement) Act, 1954, and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, are in violation of the
principles laid down under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India.

2. That, the petition filed by RRJ against them for breach of privacy and
confidentiality is not maintainable, for the same is not a fundamental right under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India

3. That, another limb of arguments is that the Drugs and Magic Remedies
(Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954, and Drugs and Cosmetics Act have
been passed by the Central Government in complete violation of the law and
especially the provisions of the Schedule VII to the Constitution of India as
Health is a Subject at Entry no. 6 in List II and therefore, the Central
Government had no locus to make the law in the first place. That, the
respondents have filed a reply and relied upon various factors, some of them
being Entry 19 and 26, of List III of Schedule VII, amongst others and have
invoked the Doctrine of Eclipse, Occupied Field, Pith and Substance, et cetera to
support their arguments and opposed the writ petitions. Argue accordingly.
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

1. That the provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable

Advertisement) Act, 1954, and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, are in violation of the
principles laid down under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of
India.

It is humbly submitted to this Hon’ble Court that in the given factual matrix, Subject
to the provisions of this Act, no person shall take any part in the publication of any
advertisement referring to any drug in terms which suggest or are calculated to lead to
the use of that drug for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of any
disease, disorder or condition specified in the Schedule, or any other disease, disorder
or condition (by whatsoever name called) which may be specified in the rules made
under this Act.

As per Article 14 and 19(1)(g) i.e. Right to Equality, the State shall not deny to any
person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory
of India and Right to Freedom, that all citizens shall have the right to practise any
profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business.

Hence, it is in violation of provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies

(Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954, and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the
principles laid down under Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India

2. That, the petition filed by RRJ against them for breach of privacy and
confidentiality is not maintainable, for the same is not a fundamental right under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

It is humbly submitted that right to life and liberty under article 21 includes right to
privacy. Right to privacy is ‘a right to be let alone’ and right of confidentiality. A
citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, as in this case the medical
details of RRJ were leaked to Mr. Matrix, without his consent.

Hence, there is a breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of India as confidentiality

right to privacy was not maintained.

3. That, another limb of arguments is that the Drugs and Magic Remedies
(Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954, and Drugs and Cosmetics Act have
been passed by the Central Government in complete violation of the law and
especially the provisions of the Schedule VII to the Constitution of India as
Health is a Subject at Entry no. 6 in List II and therefore, the Central
Government had no locus to make the law in the first place. That, the
respondents have filed a reply and relied upon various factors, some of them
being Entry 19 and 26, of List III of Schedule VII, amongst others and have
invoked the Doctrine of Eclipse, Occupied Field, Pith and Substance, et cetera to
support their arguments and opposed the writ petitions. Argue accordingly.
It is humbly submitted that the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable
Advertisement) Act, 1954, and Drugs and Cosmetics Act have been passed by the
Central Government is not in complete violation of the law as per Schedule VII to the
Constitution of India as Health is a Subject at Entry no. 6 in List II i.e “Public health
and sanitation; hospitals and dispensaries” and List III—State List Drugs and poisons,
subject to the provisions of entry 59 of List I with respect to opium. Legal, medical
and other professions is different as what stated in the Drugs and Magic Remedies
(Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954, and Drugs and Cosmetics Act and as per
The Doctrine of Eclipse it states that any law which is inconsistent with fundamental
rights is not invalid and the made under Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable
Advertisement) Act, 1954, and Drugs and Cosmetics Act is completely in line with
protection of Fundamental rights and life of Human Being.
 Prayer
In the light of the arguments advanced, cases and authorities cited above, the
petitioners humbly request the Hon’ble high court of Bombay, to admit the writ
petition, and in so doing, adjudge and declare that:

1. We find no reason to that Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution

of India has not violated.

2. To treat this case as rarest of the rare and severe punishment shall be awarded
to the respondents.

3. The Respondents (jointly and severally) are liable for offences punishable
under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, read along with the
Rules framed thereunder and also the provisions of the Drugs and Magic
Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act, 1954.

4. And pass any other order, direction or relief that it may deem fit in the best
interests of justice, fairness, equity and good conscience.

Sd/-
(Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners)