A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition by US pharmaceutical major Pfizer challenging a Madras High Court judgment that refused to enforce letters rogatory issued by a United States court. The letters rogatory sought documents and testimony from Chennai-based Softgel Healthcare.
Letters rogatory (or letters of request) are formal written requests from a court in one country to a court in another, seeking judicial assistance, typically to obtain evidence.
During the hearing, the Chief Justice of India questioned the inequity in international cooperation, observing that while foreign authorities readily seek information from India, the same willingness is not always evident when Indian entities make similar requests.
“We will not compromise with the sovereignty of our country. We are issuing notice because we want to settle the law,” the Chief Justice of India said.
The Bench clarified that the matter would be examined to determine whether the principle of reciprocity is, in fact, honoured when Indian companies or authorities seek judicial assistance abroad.
“It’s not that we are issuing notice because we are convinced with you… we would like to know if an Indian company goes there and seeks an order, will they issue it?” the Chief Justice of India remarked. The court also indicated that the Union government should be impleaded, noting that the issue goes beyond private commercial interests and touches upon questions of sanctity and sovereignty.
Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for Pfizer, pressed for urgent consideration, pointing out that trial proceedings in the US District Court of Delaware are scheduled to commence on April 27. He argued that letters rogatory operate on reciprocal cooperation and that Indian requests are similarly honoured abroad.
The dispute arises from patent litigation in the United States, where Pfizer has sued Cipla and Zenara I (now Hikma) for alleged infringement of its patent covering crystalline forms of Tafamidis, marketed as Vyndamax. Pfizer claims that Softgel manufactured the drug for the defendants and sought access to records relating to testing, development, and manufacturing.
The Madras High Court judgment under challenge was delivered by a Division Bench of Justices G Jayachandran and Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, which set aside an earlier single-judge order permitting the enforcement of the letters rogatory.
Pfizer had sought the appointment of a commissioner to collect documents, record evidence, and constitute a confidentiality club. Softgel opposed the plea, arguing that it was not a party to the US litigation and that disclosure would compromise confidential manufacturing data and commercial interests. It also pointed out that Pfizer’s corresponding Indian patent application had been rejected and that the appeal remains pending.
Accepting these objections, the High Court held that the request did not meet the requirement of a clear and specific description under Article 3 of the Hague Convention. It further found that the request amounted to pre-trial discovery, which India has opted out of under Article 23 of the Convention. Allowing Softgel’s appeals, the High Court set aside the single-judge order and dismissed Pfizer’s applications seeking enforcement of the letters rogatory.
 "SC, Supreme Court")