Jump to content

J. Sai Deepak: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
2 more cases
Tags: Reverted Visual edit Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Reverted good faith edits by Matarisvan (talk): NOT RESUME and INDISCRIMINATE
Tags: Twinkle Undo Reverted
Line 26: Line 26:
Deepak was one of the counsels for the [[Internet and Mobile Association of India]] vs. State of Uttar Pradesh case, later clubbed into the [[Shreya Singhal v. Union of India]] case.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Shrivastava |first=Prachi |title=Behind the scenes: How 90+ lawyers & 3 judges created the biggest free speech judgment in more than half a century |url=https://www.legallyindia.com/the-bench-and-the-bar/behind-the-scenes-how-90-lawyers-3-judges-created-the-biggest-free-speech-judgment-in-more-than-half-a-century-20150401-5767 |access-date=2024-02-13 |website=www.legallyindia.com |language=en-gb}}</ref> The cases related to [[freedom of speech]] on social media, which had been severely curbed by the [[Information Technology Act, 2000]] which held posters criminally liable for their posts. The Supreme Court ruled Section 66 of the Act to be unconstitutional, and watered down Section 79 of the Act which had held intermediaries like tech companies responsible for illegal acts on their platforms.<ref>{{Cite web |date=24 March 2015 |title=Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India |url=https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/aorexam/leading_cases/35.pdf |website=Supreme Court of India}}</ref>
Deepak was one of the counsels for the [[Internet and Mobile Association of India]] vs. State of Uttar Pradesh case, later clubbed into the [[Shreya Singhal v. Union of India]] case.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Shrivastava |first=Prachi |title=Behind the scenes: How 90+ lawyers & 3 judges created the biggest free speech judgment in more than half a century |url=https://www.legallyindia.com/the-bench-and-the-bar/behind-the-scenes-how-90-lawyers-3-judges-created-the-biggest-free-speech-judgment-in-more-than-half-a-century-20150401-5767 |access-date=2024-02-13 |website=www.legallyindia.com |language=en-gb}}</ref> The cases related to [[freedom of speech]] on social media, which had been severely curbed by the [[Information Technology Act, 2000]] which held posters criminally liable for their posts. The Supreme Court ruled Section 66 of the Act to be unconstitutional, and watered down Section 79 of the Act which had held intermediaries like tech companies responsible for illegal acts on their platforms.<ref>{{Cite web |date=24 March 2015 |title=Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India |url=https://main.sci.gov.in/pdf/aorexam/leading_cases/35.pdf |website=Supreme Court of India}}</ref>


Deepak is most famous for his representations in the case on the [[Entry of women to Sabarimala|entry of women]] to [[Sabarimala Temple]],<ref>{{Cite web |date=2018-07-31 |title=A lawyer for Lord Ayyappa: Advocate Sai Deepak turns heads in SC arguing for Sabarimala deity's right to celibacy |url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/a-lawyer-for-lord-ayyappa-advocate-sai-deepak-turns-heads-in-supreme-court-arguing-for-sabarimala-deitys-right-to-celibacy-4859291.html |access-date=2024-02-25 |website=Firstpost |language=en-us}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Iyer |first=Lakshmi |date=5 August 2018 |title=Meet Sabarimala case lawyer Sai Deepak J, who caught the nation's attention with his ‘celibacy’ argument |url=https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/others/sunday-read/small-talk-the-deitys-advocate/articleshow/65275883.cms |access-date=2024-02-25 |website=[[Mumbai Mirror]] |language=en}}</ref> which earned him appreciation from the 5 judge bench headed by Chief Justice [[Dipak Misra]] which had heard the case.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Press Trust of India |date=26 July 2018 |title=SC Praises Lawyer for Spirited Defense in Sabarimala Case |url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/sc-praises-lawyer-for-spirited-defence-in-sabarimala-case-118072601333_1.html |website=Business Standard}}</ref> He argued against the entry, stating that the Hindu deity [[Lord Ayyappa|Ayyappan]] observes ''naishtika [[brahmacharya]]'' ("lifelong celibacy").<ref>{{Cite web |date=February 2019 |title=Written Submissions to the Supreme Court of India in the Sabarimala Temple Entry Case |url=https://peoplefordharma.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Sabarimala-Written-Submissions-1.pdf}}</ref> He further argued that the deity is a living being and a [[juristic person]] and thus can avail the constitutional rights of religious liberty and [[Freedom of religion in India|freedom of religion]] granted by Articles 21 and 25 of the [[Constitution of India]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=26 July 2018 |title=Sabarimala #5: Respondents Argue Every Instance of Exclusion Not Akin to Discrimination |url=https://www.scobserver.in/reports/indian-young-lawyers-association-v-state-of-kerala-sabarimala-temple-entry-day-5-arguments/ |access-date=2023-08-17 |website=Supreme Court Observer |language=en-US}}</ref> The Supreme Court allowed women's entry into the temple in a 4:1 verdict, with Justice [[Indu Malhotra]], the only female judge on the bench, dissenting.<ref>{{Cite web |date=28 September 2018 |title=Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. The State of Kerala |url=https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/18956_2006_Judgement_28-Sep-2018.pdf |website=Supreme Court Observer}}</ref>
Deepak is most famous for his representations in the case on the [[Entry of women to Sabarimala|entry of women]] to [[Sabarimala Temple]]. He argued against the entry, stating that the Hindu deity [[Lord Ayyappa|Ayyappan]] observes ''naishtika [[brahmacharya]]'' ("lifelong celibacy").<ref>{{Cite web |date=February 2019 |title=Written Submissions to the Supreme Court of India in the Sabarimala Temple Entry Case |url=https://peoplefordharma.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Sabarimala-Written-Submissions-1.pdf}}</ref> He further argued that the deity is a living being and thus can avail the [[constitution]]al rights of religious liberty and [[Freedom of religion in India|freedom of religion]] granted by Articles 21 and 25 of the [[Constitution of India]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=26 July 2018 |title=Sabarimala #5: Respondents Argue Every Instance of Exclusion Not Akin to Discrimination |url=https://www.scobserver.in/reports/indian-young-lawyers-association-v-state-of-kerala-sabarimala-temple-entry-day-5-arguments/ |access-date=2023-08-17 |website=Supreme Court Observer |language=en-US}}</ref> The Supreme Court allowed women's entry into the temple in a 4:1 verdict, with Justice [[Indu Malhotra]], the only female judge on the bench, dissenting.<ref>{{Cite web |date=28 September 2018 |title=Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. The State of Kerala |url=https://www.scobserver.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/18956_2006_Judgement_28-Sep-2018.pdf |website=Supreme Court Observer}}</ref>


Deepak was also a counsel in a petition to allow priests of any caste to be priests at Sabarimala, the priesthood at the temple has historically been open to only [[Malayali Brahmin|Malayali Brahmins]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sebastian |first=Sheryl |date=2023-02-25 |title=Sabarimala: People For Dharma Urges Kerala HC To Not Interfere With Practice Of Appointing Only Malayala Brahmin As Priest |url=https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/sabarimala-people-for-dharma-urges-kerala-hc-to-not-interfere-with-practice-of-appointing-only-malayala-brahmin-as-priest-222527 |access-date=2024-02-24 |website=www.livelaw.in |language=en}}</ref> Deepak argued that the norm was not caste discrimination, as [[Brahmin|Brahmins]] from other regions were also not allowed into the Sabarimala priesthood; he argued that this was the rule ordained by the deity and thus constitutionally protected by Articles 21 and 25, among other provisions.<ref>{{Cite web |date=22 February 2023 |title=Written Submissions in the Vishnunarayan vs State of Kerala case |url=https://www.peoplefordharma.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/14484_Written_Submission-3.pdf}}</ref> The case is still pending before the [[Kerala High Court]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jolly |first=Tellmy |date=2024-02-22 |title=Sabarimala: Kerala High Court To Pronounce Judgment On Plea Challenging Appointment Of Only Malayala Brahmins As Melshantis On Feb 27 |url=https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-malayala-brahmin-judgment-tuesday-february-27-2024-250210 |access-date=2024-02-24 |website=www.livelaw.in |language=en}}</ref>
Deepak was also a counsel in a petition to allow priests of any caste to be priests at Sabarimala, the priesthood at the temple has historically been open to only [[Malayali Brahmin|Malayali Brahmins]]. Deepak argued that the norm was not caste discrimination, as [[Brahmin|Brahmins]] from other regions were also not allowed into the Sabarimala priesthood; he argued that this was the rule ordained by the deity and thus constitutionally protected by Articles 21 and 25, among other provisions.<ref>{{Cite web |date=22 February 2023 |title=Written Submissions in the Vishnunarayan vs State of Kerala case |url=https://www.peoplefordharma.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/14484_Written_Submission-3.pdf}}</ref> The case is still pending before the [[Kerala High Court]].


Deepak represented the [[Travancore royal family]] for their right to manage the estates of the [[Padmanabhaswamy Temple]] in [[Thiruvananthapuram|Thiruvanathpuram]]. Deepak used scriptures (eg. the ''Kerala Mahatmya''), historical documents and agreements entered into by the royal family to prove that the takeover of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple by the [[Government of Kerala|Kerala government]] was illegal.<ref>{{Cite web |date=April 2019 |title=Written Submissions to the Supreme Court of India in the Padmanabhaswamy Temple Administration Case |url=https://peoplefordharma.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Padmanabhaswamy-Written-Submissions.pdf}}</ref> The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of the family.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Vishwanath |first=Apurva |date=2020-07-13 |title=Explained: Padmanabhaswamy temple case, and what the verdict means for the Travancore royal family |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-the-padmanabhaswamy-temple-case-and-what-verdict-means-for-travancore-royal-family-6503543/ |access-date=2023-10-04 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=13 July 2020 |title=Sri Marthanda Varma vs State of Kerala |url=https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2011/10179/10179_2011_32_1501_22898_Judgement_13-Jul-2020.pdf |website=Supreme Court of India}}</ref> Deepak was one of two counsels for a petitioner who accused the state government of apathy/involvement in the [[2021 West Bengal post-poll violence]]. The [[Calcutta High Court]] ruled in favor of the petitioners.<ref>{{Cite web |date=19 August 2021 |title=Susheel Kumar Pandey & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal |url=https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/C4D1FAQFWj7TPr1VsCA/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1629430980517?e=1708560000&v=beta&t=aFfEmFbITeErArYgEdeaBK5WvLmhbLQMiwOmm2nBh7Y |publisher=Calcutta High Court}}</ref>
Deepak represented the [[Travancore royal family]] for their right to manage the estates of the [[Padmanabhaswamy Temple]] in [[Thiruvananthapuram|Thiruvanathpuram]]. Deepak used scriptures (eg. the ''Kerala Mahatmya''), historical documents and agreements entered into by the royal family to prove that the takeover of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple by the [[Government of Kerala|Kerala government]] was illegal.<ref>{{Cite web |date=April 2019 |title=Written Submissions to the Supreme Court of India in the Padmanabhaswamy Temple Administration Case |url=https://peoplefordharma.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Padmanabhaswamy-Written-Submissions.pdf}}</ref> The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of the family.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Vishwanath |first=Apurva |date=2020-07-13 |title=Explained: Padmanabhaswamy temple case, and what the verdict means for the Travancore royal family |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-the-padmanabhaswamy-temple-case-and-what-verdict-means-for-travancore-royal-family-6503543/ |access-date=2023-10-04 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=13 July 2020 |title=Sri Marthanda Varma vs State of Kerala |url=https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2011/10179/10179_2011_32_1501_22898_Judgement_13-Jul-2020.pdf |website=Supreme Court of India}}</ref> Deepak was one of two counsels for a petitioner who accused the state government of apathy/involvement in the [[2021 West Bengal post-poll violence]]. The [[Calcutta High Court]] ruled in favor of the petitioners.<ref>{{Cite web |date=19 August 2021 |title=Susheel Kumar Pandey & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal |url=https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/C4D1FAQFWj7TPr1VsCA/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1629430980517?e=1708560000&v=beta&t=aFfEmFbITeErArYgEdeaBK5WvLmhbLQMiwOmm2nBh7Y |publisher=Calcutta High Court}}</ref>
Line 38: Line 38:
Deepak was the counsel for [[Anand Ranganathan]] in the [[Contempt of court in India|contempt of court]] case against the former for endorsing the criticism of Justice [[S. Muralidhar]] by [[S Gurumurthy]] and [[Vivek Agnihotri]]. The Justice had cancelled the arrest of [[Gautam Navlakha]], who had allegedly contributed to the incitement of the [[2018 Bhima Koregaon violence]].<ref>{{cite news |id={{ProQuest|2817965951}} |title='Am a free speech absolutist': Author Anand Ranganathan in contempt case |agency=Indo-Asian News Service |date=24 May 2023 }}</ref> Deepak argued that Ranganathan merely supported the right of the Justice's critics to criticize him as part of their [[freedom of expression]], and that Ranganathan himself did not agree with the criticisms. The Delhi High Court closed the proceedings against Ranganathan.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Thapliyal |first=Nupur |date=2024-01-03 |title=Delhi High Court Closes Proceedings Against Anand Ranganathan In Criminal Contempt Case For Tweets Against Justice S Muralidhar |url=https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-anand-ranganathan-criminal-contempt-case-tweets-justice-s-muralidhar-245737 |access-date=2024-02-03 |website=www.livelaw.in |language=en}}</ref>
Deepak was the counsel for [[Anand Ranganathan]] in the [[Contempt of court in India|contempt of court]] case against the former for endorsing the criticism of Justice [[S. Muralidhar]] by [[S Gurumurthy]] and [[Vivek Agnihotri]]. The Justice had cancelled the arrest of [[Gautam Navlakha]], who had allegedly contributed to the incitement of the [[2018 Bhima Koregaon violence]].<ref>{{cite news |id={{ProQuest|2817965951}} |title='Am a free speech absolutist': Author Anand Ranganathan in contempt case |agency=Indo-Asian News Service |date=24 May 2023 }}</ref> Deepak argued that Ranganathan merely supported the right of the Justice's critics to criticize him as part of their [[freedom of expression]], and that Ranganathan himself did not agree with the criticisms. The Delhi High Court closed the proceedings against Ranganathan.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Thapliyal |first=Nupur |date=2024-01-03 |title=Delhi High Court Closes Proceedings Against Anand Ranganathan In Criminal Contempt Case For Tweets Against Justice S Muralidhar |url=https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-anand-ranganathan-criminal-contempt-case-tweets-justice-s-muralidhar-245737 |access-date=2024-02-03 |website=www.livelaw.in |language=en}}</ref>


Deepak is also the counsel for the [[Benares State|royal family of Kashi]] in the case demanding a [[constitutional review]] of the [[Places of Worship Act, 1991]], which freezes the status of all disputed religious structures as they were before Independence Day (15 August 1947).<ref>{{cite news |id={{ProQuest|2711835121}} |title=Supreme Court to hear pleas challenging constitutional validity of Places of Worship Act on October 11 |newspaper=Financial Express |location=New Delhi |date=9 September 2022 }}</ref> In particular, the family demands the ownership and restoration of the [[Razia Mosque]] and Dhaurahra Mosque, which they allege are structures occupying the orginial [[Kashi Vishwanath Temple]] and Bindu Madhav Temple sites, respectively.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kaur |first=Gurpreet |date=2022-09-08 |title=Daughter Of Kashi Royal Family Head Moves Supreme Court Seeking Intervention In Petitions Challenging Places Of Worship Act |url=https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/daughter-kashi-royal-family-intervention-place-of-worship-act-1437818 |access-date=2024-02-25 |website=www.verdictum.in |language=en}}</ref>
Deepak is also the counsel for the [[Benares State|royal family of Kashi]] in the case demanding a [[constitutional review]] of the [[Places of Worship Act, 1991]], which freezes the status of all disputed religious structures as they were before Independence Day (15 August 1947).<ref>{{cite news |id={{ProQuest|2711835121}} |title=Supreme Court to hear pleas challenging constitutional validity of Places of Worship Act on October 11 |newspaper=Financial Express |location=New Delhi |date=9 September 2022 }}</ref>


=== Intellectual property cases ===
=== Intellectual property cases ===
Line 45: Line 45:
Deepak was one of the counsels for [[Greenpeace]] in a case filed by [[Tata Sons]] alleging trademark infringement by the former through its 'Turtle vs. Tata' online game. The game displayed the endangered [[Olive ridley sea turtle|Olive ridley sea turtles]] fighting against the Tata logo, referring to the risk posed to the turtles due to the construction of [[Dhamra Port]] by Tata Sons.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Vaughan |first=Adam |date=2010-07-26 |title=Tata to sue Greenpeace over turtle game |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/26/tata-sue-greenpeace-turtle-game |access-date=2024-02-13 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> Justice [[S. Ravindra Bhat]] of the Delhi High Court (later a Supreme Court judge) ruled that the parody game did not infringe on the trademark, in a ruling seen as a landmark for freedom of expression.<ref>{{Cite web |date=28 January 2011 |title=Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International |url=https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Tata-Sons-Limited-v.-Greenpeace-International.pdf |website=Global Freedom of Expression, Columbia University |publisher=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International |url=https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/tata-sons-limited-v-greenpeace-international/ |access-date=2024-02-13 |website=Global Freedom of Expression, Columbia University |language=en}}</ref>
Deepak was one of the counsels for [[Greenpeace]] in a case filed by [[Tata Sons]] alleging trademark infringement by the former through its 'Turtle vs. Tata' online game. The game displayed the endangered [[Olive ridley sea turtle|Olive ridley sea turtles]] fighting against the Tata logo, referring to the risk posed to the turtles due to the construction of [[Dhamra Port]] by Tata Sons.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Vaughan |first=Adam |date=2010-07-26 |title=Tata to sue Greenpeace over turtle game |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jul/26/tata-sue-greenpeace-turtle-game |access-date=2024-02-13 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> Justice [[S. Ravindra Bhat]] of the Delhi High Court (later a Supreme Court judge) ruled that the parody game did not infringe on the trademark, in a ruling seen as a landmark for freedom of expression.<ref>{{Cite web |date=28 January 2011 |title=Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International |url=https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Tata-Sons-Limited-v.-Greenpeace-International.pdf |website=Global Freedom of Expression, Columbia University |publisher=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International |url=https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/tata-sons-limited-v-greenpeace-international/ |access-date=2024-02-13 |website=Global Freedom of Expression, Columbia University |language=en}}</ref>


Deepak was involved in the [[Basmati|Basmati rice]] [[Geographical indication|Geographical Indication]] dispute where he represented the [[Government of Madhya Pradesh]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2020-10-06 |title=SC issues notice on plea by MP over Basmati GI tag |url=https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sc-issues-notice-on-plea-by-mp-over-basmati-gi-tag-6704582/ |access-date=2024-02-25 |website=The Indian Express |language=en}}</ref> The Delhi High Court in a 2019 judgement voided the central government's exclusion of [[Madhya Pradesh]] from the list of states granted the right to grow Basmati rice.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Delhi High Court |date=2019-04-25 |title=Judgement for the State of Madhya Pradesh vs Union of India case |url=https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-360416.pdf |access-date=2023-08-17 |website=LiveLaw |language=}}</ref> Deepak was the leading counsel for [[USV (company)|USV]], Micro Labs and MSN Laboratories in a case filed by [[AstraZeneca]] alleging [[patent infringement]] by Indian companies manufacturing [[Dapagliflozin]], which AstraZeneca held the patent for. The Delhi High Court did not grant an [[injunction]] in 2020;<ref>{{Cite web |title=Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. vs Micro Labs Limited on 18 November, 2020 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18772769/ |access-date=2024-02-09 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref> and dismissed the case in 2021 after directing AstraZeneca to reimburse the legal costs for all the defendants.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited on 20 July, 2021 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60901055/ |access-date=2024-02-09 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>
Deepak was involved in the [[Basmati|Basmati rice]] [[Geographical indication|Geographical Indication]] dispute where he represented the [[Government of Madhya Pradesh]]. The Delhi High Court in a 2019 judgement voided the central government's exclusion of [[Madhya Pradesh]] from the list of states granted the right to grow Basmati rice.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Delhi High Court |date=2019-04-25 |title=Judgement for the State of Madhya Pradesh vs Union of India case |url=https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-360416.pdf |access-date=2023-08-17 |website=LiveLaw |language=}}</ref> Deepak was the leading counsel for [[USV (company)|USV]], Micro Labs and MSN Laboratories in a case filed by [[AstraZeneca]] alleging [[patent infringement]] by Indian companies manufacturing [[Dapagliflozin]], which AstraZeneca held the patent for. The Delhi High Court did not grant an [[injunction]] in 2020;<ref>{{Cite web |title=Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. vs Micro Labs Limited on 18 November, 2020 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18772769/ |access-date=2024-02-09 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref> and dismissed the case in 2021 after directing AstraZeneca to reimburse the legal costs for all the defendants.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited on 20 July, 2021 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60901055/ |access-date=2024-02-09 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>


Deepak was the arguing counsel for [[BharatPe]] in a case filed by [[PhonePe]] alleging trademark infringement by the former who had used the word 'Pe' (a play on Pay) in its trademark, which the latter claimed it had the trademark for. The Delhi High Court dismissed the case and granted the trademark to BharatPe.<ref>{{Cite web |date=29 August 2022 |title=PhonePe Private Limited vs. Ezy Services & Anr. |url=https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/D4D1FAQGAP1VU-fytPg/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1666238412416?e=1708560000&v=beta&t=a_zfB3oQnYIPXXmAO-i7DX_xWc9Ih5aokqksgB5CniA |publisher=Delhi High Court}}</ref> Deepak was also the arguing counsel for [[Tube Investments of India Limited]] where they alleged that Jagdamba Enterprises had infringed on their trademark for the 'Diamond' brand of automobile parts by selling counterfeits under the same name. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tube.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2 June 2022 |title=Tube Investments of India Limited vs. Jagdamba Enterprises |url=https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/D4D1FAQGWgxxhF6YE4Q/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1665985442850?e=1708560000&v=beta&t=YgpDp9UGgxmPPIeMNNow0UFz_BtBpOBfPAv_-PMDqRw |publisher=Delhi High Court}}</ref>
Deepak was the arguing counsel for [[BharatPe]] in a case filed by [[PhonePe]] alleging trademark infringement by the former who had used the word 'Pe' (a play on Pay) in its trademark, which the latter claimed it had the trademark for. The Delhi High Court dismissed the case and granted the trademark to BharatPe.<ref>{{Cite web |date=29 August 2022 |title=PhonePe Private Limited vs. Ezy Services & Anr. |url=https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/D4D1FAQGAP1VU-fytPg/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1666238412416?e=1708560000&v=beta&t=a_zfB3oQnYIPXXmAO-i7DX_xWc9Ih5aokqksgB5CniA |publisher=Delhi High Court}}</ref> Deepak was also the arguing counsel for [[Tube Investments of India Limited]] where they alleged that Jagdamba Enterprises had infringed on their trademark for the 'Diamond' brand of automobile parts by selling counterfeits under the same name. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tube.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2 June 2022 |title=Tube Investments of India Limited vs. Jagdamba Enterprises |url=https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/D4D1FAQGWgxxhF6YE4Q/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1665985442850?e=1708560000&v=beta&t=YgpDp9UGgxmPPIeMNNow0UFz_BtBpOBfPAv_-PMDqRw |publisher=Delhi High Court}}</ref>

Deepak was the counsel for [[Parle Products]] in a case they filed against [[Britannia Industries]], alleging that Britannia was mocking their brand tagline in its advertisements. The Delhi High Court prohibited the publishing of any such advertisements.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Srivastava |first=Sanjoli N. |date=2022-11-28 |title=Delhi High Court Restrains Britannia From Re-Publishing Disparaging Print Advertisements Against Parle |url=https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/delhi-high-court-britannia-parle-print-advertisements-1450272 |access-date=2024-02-25 |website=www.verdictum.in |language=en}}</ref>


Deepak was the leading counsel for [[Natco Pharma]] in a case where [[FMC Corporation]] claimed [[Process patent|process patents]] for production of [[chlorantraniliprole]]. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the patent claims and directed FMC to reimburse Natco for the legal costs incurred.<ref>{{Cite web |date=5 December 2022 |title=FMC Corporation vs Natco Pharma |url=https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/C4D1FAQHbf2XO68KC1Q/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1670250273701?e=1708560000&v=beta&t=T6dHCqFmv8B1Q9q8EKE5jVlrrob6STOggPT2YI-Ee8Q |publisher=Delhi High Court}}</ref> Deepak has also been the leading counsel for Natco in three other patent disputes. In the first case, Swedish pharma major [[Novartis]] claimed Natco had infringed on its patent for [[Entresto]] by manufacturing a [[Valsartan]] and [[Sacubitril]] combination medication similar to Entresto.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilla |first=Viswanath |date=2023-01-13 |title=Natco Plea: Delhi high court sets aside Novartis patent |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/pharmaceuticals/natco-plea-delhi-high-court-sets-aside-novartis-patent/articleshow/96948659.cms?from=mdr |url-access=subscription |access-date=2024-02-09 |work=The Economic Times |issn=0013-0389}}</ref> The Delhi High Court nullified the patent granted to Novartis as the it was ruled to be in violation of statutory provisions.<ref>{{Cite web |date=15 January 2023 |title=Natco Pharma vs Novartis AG |url=https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/C4D1FAQE5zfTdBiAx1g/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1673783633693?e=1708560000&v=beta&t=4hj9X2LON-D4i_Jt8sJEkRz9Pmp334oVDQHlnQOfp5g |publisher=Delhi High Court}}</ref> In the second case, the German pharma major [[Boehringer Ingelheim]] claimed Natco and other Indian pharma companies had infringed on its patent for [[Linagliptin]]. The Delhi High Court dismissed the case and ordered Boehringer Ingelheim to reimburse Natco and the other defendants for their costs.<ref>{{Cite web |date=29 March 2023 |title=Boehringer Ingelheim vs. Natco Pharma & Others |url=https://dhccaseinfo.nic.in/jupload/dhc/ABL/judgement/29-03-2023/ABL29032023SC2362022_163714.pdf |website=Delhi High Court}}</ref>
Deepak was the leading counsel for [[Natco Pharma]] in a case where [[FMC Corporation]] claimed [[Process patent|process patents]] for production of [[chlorantraniliprole]]. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the patent claims and directed FMC to reimburse Natco for the legal costs incurred.<ref>{{Cite web |date=5 December 2022 |title=FMC Corporation vs Natco Pharma |url=https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/C4D1FAQHbf2XO68KC1Q/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1670250273701?e=1708560000&v=beta&t=T6dHCqFmv8B1Q9q8EKE5jVlrrob6STOggPT2YI-Ee8Q |publisher=Delhi High Court}}</ref> Deepak has also been the leading counsel for Natco in three other patent disputes. In the first case, Swedish pharma major [[Novartis]] claimed Natco had infringed on its patent for [[Entresto]] by manufacturing a [[Valsartan]] and [[Sacubitril]] combination medication similar to Entresto.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Pilla |first=Viswanath |date=2023-01-13 |title=Natco Plea: Delhi high court sets aside Novartis patent |url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/healthcare/biotech/pharmaceuticals/natco-plea-delhi-high-court-sets-aside-novartis-patent/articleshow/96948659.cms?from=mdr |url-access=subscription |access-date=2024-02-09 |work=The Economic Times |issn=0013-0389}}</ref> The Delhi High Court nullified the patent granted to Novartis as the it was ruled to be in violation of statutory provisions.<ref>{{Cite web |date=15 January 2023 |title=Natco Pharma vs Novartis AG |url=https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/C4D1FAQE5zfTdBiAx1g/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1673783633693?e=1708560000&v=beta&t=4hj9X2LON-D4i_Jt8sJEkRz9Pmp334oVDQHlnQOfp5g |publisher=Delhi High Court}}</ref> In the second case, the German pharma major [[Boehringer Ingelheim]] claimed Natco and other Indian pharma companies had infringed on its patent for [[Linagliptin]]. The Delhi High Court dismissed the case and ordered Boehringer Ingelheim to reimburse Natco and the other defendants for their costs.<ref>{{Cite web |date=29 March 2023 |title=Boehringer Ingelheim vs. Natco Pharma & Others |url=https://dhccaseinfo.nic.in/jupload/dhc/ABL/judgement/29-03-2023/ABL29032023SC2362022_163714.pdf |website=Delhi High Court}}</ref>
Line 56: Line 54:


Deepak was the leading counsel for MSN and [[Dr. Reddy's Laboratories]] in a case filed by [[CSL Vifor]]'s Indian arm alleging infringement on its patent for [[ferric carboxymaltose]], a supplement used to treat [[anemia]]. The Delhi High Court dismissed the claim.<ref>{{Cite web |date=24 July 2023 |title=Vifor International Ltd. vs. MSN Laboratories & Ors. |url=https://dhccaseinfo.nic.in/jupload/dhc/JIS/judgement/25-07-2023/JIS24072023SC2612021_210538.pdf |website=Delhi High Court}}</ref> Deepak was also the leading counsel for [[Avenue Supermarts]] (trade name DMart) in a trademark dispute where Dolphin Mart claimed it had the sole right to use the name DMart. The Delhi High Court rejected the claim.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Dolphin Mart Private Limited vs Avenue Supermarts Limited & Anr. on 21 August, 2023 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10209794/?type=print |access-date=2024-02-12 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>
Deepak was the leading counsel for MSN and [[Dr. Reddy's Laboratories]] in a case filed by [[CSL Vifor]]'s Indian arm alleging infringement on its patent for [[ferric carboxymaltose]], a supplement used to treat [[anemia]]. The Delhi High Court dismissed the claim.<ref>{{Cite web |date=24 July 2023 |title=Vifor International Ltd. vs. MSN Laboratories & Ors. |url=https://dhccaseinfo.nic.in/jupload/dhc/JIS/judgement/25-07-2023/JIS24072023SC2612021_210538.pdf |website=Delhi High Court}}</ref> Deepak was also the leading counsel for [[Avenue Supermarts]] (trade name DMart) in a trademark dispute where Dolphin Mart claimed it had the sole right to use the name DMart. The Delhi High Court rejected the claim.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Dolphin Mart Private Limited vs Avenue Supermarts Limited & Anr. on 21 August, 2023 |url=https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10209794/?type=print |access-date=2024-02-12 |website=indiankanoon.org}}</ref>

Deepak was the counsel for [[MakeMyTrip]] in a case they filed against Dealmytrip, alleging trademark infrigement by the latter by using a similar sounding name to the former. The Delhi High Court issued an injunction to Dealmytrip ordering them to not use the name anymore.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pahwa |first=Jayanti |date=2023-12-03 |title=Confusingly Similar To 'MakeMyTrip': Delhi HC Grants Injunction Against 'DialMyTrip' For Trademark Infringement |url=https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/delhi-high-court-injunction-dialmytrip-makemytrip-suit-trademark-infringement-1507220 |access-date=2024-02-25 |website=www.verdictum.in |language=en}}</ref>

Deepak was the leading counsel for Dr. Reddy's Laboratories (DRL) in a case filed by Astrazeneca and Kudos Pharmaceuticals, alleging infringement of their patent for the anti-cancer drug [[Olaparib]] (brand name Lynparza). The Delhi High Court accepted the claim and ordered DRL to stop manufacturing Olaparib until 12 March 2024, when the patent would expire.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Chaturvedi |first=Swasti |date=2024-01-02 |title=Delhi HC Permanently Restrains Dr. Reddy’s From Commercially Launching Any Product Consisting Of 'Olaparib' |url=https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/patent-case-dr-reddys-laboratories-ltd-restrained-olaparib-delhi-hc-1513076 |access-date=2024-02-25 |website=Verdictum |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=22 December 2023 |title=KuDOS Pharmaceuticals vs. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories |url=https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/kudos-pharmaceuticals-v-dr-reddys-laboratories-limitedwatermark-1575665.pdf |website=Verdictum}}</ref>


==Views==
==Views==
Line 66: Line 60:
Deepak is a [[Hindutva]] activist. He believes that the several good qualities of the [[Vedanga|knowledge systems]] of [[Vedic civilisation|ancient Hindu civilization]], mixed with the good qualities of [[Prussian education system|modern Education]] systems, can be a template for [[Education in India|modern Indian education]] systems, which he considers to have multiple drawbacks.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/j-sai-deepak-is-wrong-indian-democracy-is-not-hindu-will-8690455/ |last=Sijoria |first=Siddharth |title=J Sai Deepak is wrong: Indian democracy is not Hindu will|date=28 June 2023 |website=[[The Indian Express]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/07/24/isolation-conservatism-and-buzzwords-what-drives-the-lucrative-market-for-right-wing-influencers|last=Sen |first=Raj Shekhar |title=Isolation, conservatism and buzzwords: What drives the lucrative market for right-wing influencers|date=24 July 2023 |website=[[newslaundry]]}}</ref> He opposes the [[Dravidian movement]] and [[Periyar|Periyarite]] thought, and claims they are Western interventions in Southern Indian faultlines.<ref>{{Cite web |last=T. Mayura Priyan |date=2023-10-08 |title=Sanatana Dharma and the Dravidian Movement: A response to J. Sai Deepak — 2 – The Leaflet |url=https://theleaflet.in/sanatana-dharma-and-the-dravidian-movement-a-response-to-j-sai-deepak-2/ |access-date=2024-02-12 |website=theleaflet.in |language=en-US}}</ref> He was criticized for his article where he discussed limitations imposed by the Indian Constitution against Hindu majoritarian expression. He had criticized the provisions for Hindu majority authority being subject to judicial review and being overruled if it conflicts with constitutional morality.<ref name=":0" />
Deepak is a [[Hindutva]] activist. He believes that the several good qualities of the [[Vedanga|knowledge systems]] of [[Vedic civilisation|ancient Hindu civilization]], mixed with the good qualities of [[Prussian education system|modern Education]] systems, can be a template for [[Education in India|modern Indian education]] systems, which he considers to have multiple drawbacks.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/j-sai-deepak-is-wrong-indian-democracy-is-not-hindu-will-8690455/ |last=Sijoria |first=Siddharth |title=J Sai Deepak is wrong: Indian democracy is not Hindu will|date=28 June 2023 |website=[[The Indian Express]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/07/24/isolation-conservatism-and-buzzwords-what-drives-the-lucrative-market-for-right-wing-influencers|last=Sen |first=Raj Shekhar |title=Isolation, conservatism and buzzwords: What drives the lucrative market for right-wing influencers|date=24 July 2023 |website=[[newslaundry]]}}</ref> He opposes the [[Dravidian movement]] and [[Periyar|Periyarite]] thought, and claims they are Western interventions in Southern Indian faultlines.<ref>{{Cite web |last=T. Mayura Priyan |date=2023-10-08 |title=Sanatana Dharma and the Dravidian Movement: A response to J. Sai Deepak — 2 – The Leaflet |url=https://theleaflet.in/sanatana-dharma-and-the-dravidian-movement-a-response-to-j-sai-deepak-2/ |access-date=2024-02-12 |website=theleaflet.in |language=en-US}}</ref> He was criticized for his article where he discussed limitations imposed by the Indian Constitution against Hindu majoritarian expression. He had criticized the provisions for Hindu majority authority being subject to judicial review and being overruled if it conflicts with constitutional morality.<ref name=":0" />


Deepak's talks on the Karnataka hijab ban at [[St. Stephen's College, Delhi|St. Stephen's College]], and on minority rights at [[Jamia Millia Islamia]] respectively, were cancelled despite receiving permission in what was termed by some journalists as the advent of [[cancel culture]] and [[deplatforming]] in India.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kumar |first=Utpal |date=2022-02-28 |title=The issue with St. Stephen's College isn't just confined to cancel culture; its very DNA is a problem |url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/the-issue-with-st-stephens-college-isnt-just-confined-to-cancel-culture-its-very-dna-is-a-problem-10415281.html |access-date=2024-02-12 |website=Firstpost |language=en}}</ref> Deepak's talk on the [[Uniform Civil Code]] in [[Bengaluru]] at a Karnataka Bar Association event faced opposition from a group of lawyers who wanted the event to be cancelled in an attempted case of deplatforming, but it wasn't.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Shukla |first=Suchita |date=2023-09-01 |title=Karnataka Bar Council Ignores Demand By Lawyers' Organisation To Cancel Sai Deepak's Talk On UCC, Event Witnesses Huge Crowd |url=https://www.verdictum.in/news/uniform-civil-code-all-india-lawyers-association-for-justice-1492654 |access-date=2024-02-12 |website=www.verdictum.in |language=en}}</ref>
Deepak's talks on the Karnataka hijab ban at [[St. Stephen's College, Delhi|St. Stephen's College]], and on minority rights at [[Jamia Millia Islamia]] respectively, were cancelled despite receiving permission in what was termed by some journalists as the advent of [[cancel culture]] and [[deplatforming]] in India.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kumar |first=Utpal |date=2022-02-28 |title=The issue with St. Stephen's College isn't just confined to cancel culture; its very DNA is a problem |url=https://www.firstpost.com/india/the-issue-with-st-stephens-college-isnt-just-confined-to-cancel-culture-its-very-dna-is-a-problem-10415281.html |access-date=2024-02-12 |website=Firstpost |language=en}}</ref> Deepak's talk on the [[Uniform Civil Code]] in [[Bengaluru]] at a Karnataka Bar Association event was faced with opposition from a group of lawyers who wanted the event to be cancelled in an attempted case of deplatforming, but it wasn't.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Shukla |first=Suchita |date=2023-09-01 |title=Karnataka Bar Council Ignores Demand By Lawyers' Organisation To Cancel Sai Deepak's Talk On UCC, Event Witnesses Huge Crowd |url=https://www.verdictum.in/news/uniform-civil-code-all-india-lawyers-association-for-justice-1492654 |access-date=2024-02-12 |website=www.verdictum.in |language=en}}</ref>


Deepak was criticized for his statements on the BeerBiceps podcast hosted by Ranveer Allahbadia. The host had asked him to name three people he would like to see permanently leave India, he named [[Barkha Dutt]], [[Irfan Habib]] and [[Romila Thapar]], and reasoned that they had propagated anti-national thought. As a result, these three faced online trolling where they were asked to leave the country.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kumar |first=Abhishek |date=9 August 2023 |title='BeerBiceps' Interview of J. Sai Deepak Violates Community Standards, But YouTube Won't Take It Down |url=https://thewire.in/tech/beerbiceps-j-sai-deepak-youtube-violations |access-date=2024-02-13 |website=The Wire}}</ref>
Deepak was criticized for his statements on the BeerBiceps podcast hosted by Ranveer Allahbadia. The host had asked him to name three people he would like to see permanently leave India, he named [[Barkha Dutt]], [[Irfan Habib]] and [[Romila Thapar]], and reasoned that they had propagated anti-national thought. As a result, these three faced online trolling where they were asked to leave the country.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kumar |first=Abhishek |date=9 August 2023 |title='BeerBiceps' Interview of J. Sai Deepak Violates Community Standards, But YouTube Won't Take It Down |url=https://thewire.in/tech/beerbiceps-j-sai-deepak-youtube-violations |access-date=2024-02-13 |website=The Wire}}</ref>

Revision as of 04:13, 26 February 2024

Jayakumar Sai Deepak
The article subject participating in a television news debate
Deepak on a Rajya Sabha TV debate in 2017
Born
Jayakumar Sai Deepak

(1985-11-23) November 23, 1985 (age 38)
Hyderabad, India
NationalityIndian
Alma materAnna University
IIT Kharagpur
Occupation(s)Litigator, Author
Notable workIndia, Bharat and Pakistan (2022)
India, that is Bharat (2021)
AwardsSKOCH Literature Award (2022), 'Young Alumni Achiever’s Award' by the Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur (2019)
Websitejsaideepak.com
thedemandingmistress.blogspot.com

J. Sai Deepak (born 23 November 1985) is an Indian Hindutva activist, lawyer and author.[1]

As a counsel, he practices before the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi.[2][3] Deepak has been a counsel in multiple cases, mostly in the domains of intellectual property (IP) and constitutional law, particularly in pharmaceutical patent and trademark disputes.

Education

Deepak attended St. Anthony's High School, Hyderabad. He then completed his graduation in Mechanical Engineering from Anna University. He is a law graduate from IIT Kharagpur's Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law.[4]

Career

Deepak was one of the counsels for the Internet and Mobile Association of India vs. State of Uttar Pradesh case, later clubbed into the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case.[5] The cases related to freedom of speech on social media, which had been severely curbed by the Information Technology Act, 2000 which held posters criminally liable for their posts. The Supreme Court ruled Section 66 of the Act to be unconstitutional, and watered down Section 79 of the Act which had held intermediaries like tech companies responsible for illegal acts on their platforms.[6]

Deepak is most famous for his representations in the case on the entry of women to Sabarimala Temple. He argued against the entry, stating that the Hindu deity Ayyappan observes naishtika brahmacharya ("lifelong celibacy").[7] He further argued that the deity is a living being and thus can avail the constitutional rights of religious liberty and freedom of religion granted by Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India.[8] The Supreme Court allowed women's entry into the temple in a 4:1 verdict, with Justice Indu Malhotra, the only female judge on the bench, dissenting.[9]

Deepak was also a counsel in a petition to allow priests of any caste to be priests at Sabarimala, the priesthood at the temple has historically been open to only Malayali Brahmins. Deepak argued that the norm was not caste discrimination, as Brahmins from other regions were also not allowed into the Sabarimala priesthood; he argued that this was the rule ordained by the deity and thus constitutionally protected by Articles 21 and 25, among other provisions.[10] The case is still pending before the Kerala High Court.

Deepak represented the Travancore royal family for their right to manage the estates of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvanathpuram. Deepak used scriptures (eg. the Kerala Mahatmya), historical documents and agreements entered into by the royal family to prove that the takeover of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple by the Kerala government was illegal.[11] The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of the family.[12][13] Deepak was one of two counsels for a petitioner who accused the state government of apathy/involvement in the 2021 West Bengal post-poll violence. The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners.[14]

A sub judice case Deepak is involved in is the public interest litigation (PIL) against the marital rape exception in the Indian Penal Code.[15] Deepak argued that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 already provides recourse for victims of marital rape, and that any further legislation on the issue needs to come from the Parliament, because the judiciary does not have the power to create new laws.[16][17] The Delhi High Court delivered a split verdict which agreed that the Parliament had jurisdiction over the issue;[18] the petitioners filed an appeal against the decision with the Supreme Court.[19]

Deepak argued against the PIL seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriage. His premise for this case was the same as for the marital rape criminalization, that is, the judiciary does not have the power to create new laws. When the opposing counsels contended that the Constitution was a progressive liberal document, Deepak contended that it did have room for social conservatism.[20][21][22] He also argued that granting legal status to same-sex marriage would open up the entire marital law corpus to new litigation, as the old definitions for divorce, adoption, inheritance, domestic violence, surrogacy as well as other laws would become obsolete.[23][24] The Supreme Court denied recognition and marital rights in a 3:2 verdict, ceding the prerogative over the issue to the legislature.[25]

Deepak was the counsel for Anand Ranganathan in the contempt of court case against the former for endorsing the criticism of Justice S. Muralidhar by S Gurumurthy and Vivek Agnihotri. The Justice had cancelled the arrest of Gautam Navlakha, who had allegedly contributed to the incitement of the 2018 Bhima Koregaon violence.[26] Deepak argued that Ranganathan merely supported the right of the Justice's critics to criticize him as part of their freedom of expression, and that Ranganathan himself did not agree with the criticisms. The Delhi High Court closed the proceedings against Ranganathan.[27]

Deepak is also the counsel for the royal family of Kashi in the case demanding a constitutional review of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which freezes the status of all disputed religious structures as they were before Independence Day (15 August 1947).[28]

Intellectual property cases

Deepak was one of the counsels working under leading counsel Salman Khurshid for the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in a case filed by the Swedish telecom major Ericsson.[29] The CCI had ruled against Ericsson in a case filed by the Indian smartphone companies Micromax Informatics and Intex Technologies,[30] where they alleged that Ericsson had used its dominant portfolio of GSM technology to solicit unfair royalties and derail their IPOs.[31] Ericsson alleged that the CCI did not have jurisdiction over the case. The Delhi High Court ruled that the CCI did have jurisdiction over the case, in a landmark ruling on antitrust law in India.

Deepak was one of the counsels for Greenpeace in a case filed by Tata Sons alleging trademark infringement by the former through its 'Turtle vs. Tata' online game. The game displayed the endangered Olive ridley sea turtles fighting against the Tata logo, referring to the risk posed to the turtles due to the construction of Dhamra Port by Tata Sons.[32] Justice S. Ravindra Bhat of the Delhi High Court (later a Supreme Court judge) ruled that the parody game did not infringe on the trademark, in a ruling seen as a landmark for freedom of expression.[33][34]

Deepak was involved in the Basmati rice Geographical Indication dispute where he represented the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The Delhi High Court in a 2019 judgement voided the central government's exclusion of Madhya Pradesh from the list of states granted the right to grow Basmati rice.[35] Deepak was the leading counsel for USV, Micro Labs and MSN Laboratories in a case filed by AstraZeneca alleging patent infringement by Indian companies manufacturing Dapagliflozin, which AstraZeneca held the patent for. The Delhi High Court did not grant an injunction in 2020;[36] and dismissed the case in 2021 after directing AstraZeneca to reimburse the legal costs for all the defendants.[37]

Deepak was the arguing counsel for BharatPe in a case filed by PhonePe alleging trademark infringement by the former who had used the word 'Pe' (a play on Pay) in its trademark, which the latter claimed it had the trademark for. The Delhi High Court dismissed the case and granted the trademark to BharatPe.[38] Deepak was also the arguing counsel for Tube Investments of India Limited where they alleged that Jagdamba Enterprises had infringed on their trademark for the 'Diamond' brand of automobile parts by selling counterfeits under the same name. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tube.[39]

Deepak was the leading counsel for Natco Pharma in a case where FMC Corporation claimed process patents for production of chlorantraniliprole. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the patent claims and directed FMC to reimburse Natco for the legal costs incurred.[40] Deepak has also been the leading counsel for Natco in three other patent disputes. In the first case, Swedish pharma major Novartis claimed Natco had infringed on its patent for Entresto by manufacturing a Valsartan and Sacubitril combination medication similar to Entresto.[41] The Delhi High Court nullified the patent granted to Novartis as the it was ruled to be in violation of statutory provisions.[42] In the second case, the German pharma major Boehringer Ingelheim claimed Natco and other Indian pharma companies had infringed on its patent for Linagliptin. The Delhi High Court dismissed the case and ordered Boehringer Ingelheim to reimburse Natco and the other defendants for their costs.[43]

Deepak was the leading counsel for Suncity Sheets in a case filed by Jindal Stainless Limited (Hisar) claiming that Suncity had infringed on their trademark by using the name 'Jindal' in their product names. The Delhi High Court dismissed the case in a ruling which further defined the cause of action principle.[44] Deepak was also a leading counsel for Natco Pharma in a case filed by the German pharma major Bayer seeking the evergreening of its patent for Regorafenib. The Delhi High Court dismissed the case.[45]

Deepak was the leading counsel for MSN and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories in a case filed by CSL Vifor's Indian arm alleging infringement on its patent for ferric carboxymaltose, a supplement used to treat anemia. The Delhi High Court dismissed the claim.[46] Deepak was also the leading counsel for Avenue Supermarts (trade name DMart) in a trademark dispute where Dolphin Mart claimed it had the sole right to use the name DMart. The Delhi High Court rejected the claim.[47]

Views

Deepak writes two blogs, one named Yukti on constitutional theory and legal philosophy; and one named The Demanding Mistress on civil, commercial and intellectual property law. An article in the latter blog was cited by the Madras High Court in its decision on the TVS Motor Company vs. Bajaj Auto Limited intellectual property dispute.[48]

Deepak is a Hindutva activist. He believes that the several good qualities of the knowledge systems of ancient Hindu civilization, mixed with the good qualities of modern Education systems, can be a template for modern Indian education systems, which he considers to have multiple drawbacks.[49][50] He opposes the Dravidian movement and Periyarite thought, and claims they are Western interventions in Southern Indian faultlines.[51] He was criticized for his article where he discussed limitations imposed by the Indian Constitution against Hindu majoritarian expression. He had criticized the provisions for Hindu majority authority being subject to judicial review and being overruled if it conflicts with constitutional morality.[49]

Deepak's talks on the Karnataka hijab ban at St. Stephen's College, and on minority rights at Jamia Millia Islamia respectively, were cancelled despite receiving permission in what was termed by some journalists as the advent of cancel culture and deplatforming in India.[52] Deepak's talk on the Uniform Civil Code in Bengaluru at a Karnataka Bar Association event was faced with opposition from a group of lawyers who wanted the event to be cancelled in an attempted case of deplatforming, but it wasn't.[53]

Deepak was criticized for his statements on the BeerBiceps podcast hosted by Ranveer Allahbadia. The host had asked him to name three people he would like to see permanently leave India, he named Barkha Dutt, Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar, and reasoned that they had propagated anti-national thought. As a result, these three faced online trolling where they were asked to leave the country.[54]

Deepak has participated in multiple debates, the prominent ones being with Saurabh Kirpal on same sex marriage;[55] with S. Y. Quraishi and Manish Tewari on the Uniform Civil Code;[56] with Shashi Tharoor on decoloniality;[57] and with AG Krishna Menon and Sanjay Nirupam on nationalism.[58] Deepak is also a frequent orator, having spoken at multiple universities, as well as at literature and cultural festivals.[59]

Publications

Books

  • India That Is Bharat: Coloniality, Civilisation, Constitution. New Delhi: Bloomsbury. 2021. ISBN 9789354352492.[60]
  • India, Bharat and Pakistan: The Constitutional Journey of a Sandwiched Civilisation. New Delhi: Bloomsbury. 2022. ISBN 9789354353017.[61][62][63]

References

  1. ^ Kunnummal, Ashraf (2023-08-22). "Islamic Liberation Theology and Decolonial Studies: The Case of Hindutva Extractivism". Religions. 14 (9). MDPI AG: 1080. doi:10.3390/rel14091080. ISSN 2077-1444. Of the Hindutva propagandists who deploy decolonial studies, J. Sai Deepak is the only one who has written substantively on it.
  2. ^ "Lord Ayyappa at Sabarimala too has rights under Article 21, SC told". Indo-Asian News Service. 26 July 2018. ProQuest 2076261680.
  3. ^ "Sabarimala case: Deity living person, has right to privacy, women devotees to SC". Indian Express. Mumbai. 27 July 2018. ProQuest 2076507987.
  4. ^ Iyer, Lakshmi (6 August 2018). "Small talk: The Deity's Advocate". Mumbai Mirror. ProQuest 2083283397.
  5. ^ Shrivastava, Prachi. "Behind the scenes: How 90+ lawyers & 3 judges created the biggest free speech judgment in more than half a century". www.legallyindia.com. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  6. ^ "Shreya Singhal vs. Union of India" (PDF). Supreme Court of India. 24 March 2015.
  7. ^ "Written Submissions to the Supreme Court of India in the Sabarimala Temple Entry Case" (PDF). February 2019.
  8. ^ "Sabarimala #5: Respondents Argue Every Instance of Exclusion Not Akin to Discrimination". Supreme Court Observer. 26 July 2018. Retrieved 2023-08-17.
  9. ^ "Indian Young Lawyers Association vs. The State of Kerala" (PDF). Supreme Court Observer. 28 September 2018.
  10. ^ "Written Submissions in the Vishnunarayan vs State of Kerala case" (PDF). 22 February 2023.
  11. ^ "Written Submissions to the Supreme Court of India in the Padmanabhaswamy Temple Administration Case" (PDF). April 2019.
  12. ^ Vishwanath, Apurva (2020-07-13). "Explained: Padmanabhaswamy temple case, and what the verdict means for the Travancore royal family". The Indian Express. Retrieved 2023-10-04.
  13. ^ "Sri Marthanda Varma vs State of Kerala" (PDF). Supreme Court of India. 13 July 2020.
  14. ^ "Susheel Kumar Pandey & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal". Calcutta High Court. 19 August 2021.
  15. ^ "Challenge to the Marital Rape Exception". Supreme Court Observer. Retrieved 2023-08-17.
  16. ^ Sachdev, Vakasha (2022-01-28). "Marital Rape: Defenders of Exception Say Marriage Ground for Different Treatment". TheQuint. Retrieved 2024-02-03.
  17. ^ "Final Written Submissions On Behalf of The Men's Welfare Trust" (PDF). LawBeat. 27 January 2022.
  18. ^ "(Judgement of) W.P. (C) 284/2015 & CM Nos. 54525-26/2018" (PDF). Delhi High Court. 11 May 2022.
  19. ^ Soibam Rocky Singh & Jagriti Chandra (2022-05-11). "Delhi HC delivers split verdict on marital rape". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2024-02-03.
  20. ^ B, Kanchan (2023-05-10). "Petitioners Have A Cause, But No Case: Read Advocate Sai Deepak's Arguments In Same Sex Marriage Case". www.verdictum.in. Retrieved 2023-08-18.
  21. ^ "Judgement Plea for Marital Equality" (PDF). Supreme Court Observer. 17 October 2023. pp. 62–63.
  22. ^ "Written Submissions In Same Sex Marriage Case". 8 May 2023.
  23. ^ Tripathi, Shishir (2023-10-20). Alam, Majid (ed.). "Agree with SC's Majority View, Adoption Can't Merely be Decided by Law: Sai Deepak on Same-sex Marriage". News18. Retrieved 2024-02-03.
  24. ^ "Transcript of WP (Civil) 1011 of 2022 Hearing dated 10.05.2023" (PDF). Supreme Court of India. 10 May 2023. pp. 34–39.
  25. ^ Kalia, Saumya (2023-10-18). "Supreme Court's verdict on same-sex marriages | Explained". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2023-11-23.
  26. ^ "'Am a free speech absolutist': Author Anand Ranganathan in contempt case". Indo-Asian News Service. 24 May 2023. ProQuest 2817965951.
  27. ^ Thapliyal, Nupur (2024-01-03). "Delhi High Court Closes Proceedings Against Anand Ranganathan In Criminal Contempt Case For Tweets Against Justice S Muralidhar". www.livelaw.in. Retrieved 2024-02-03.
  28. ^ "Supreme Court to hear pleas challenging constitutional validity of Places of Worship Act on October 11". Financial Express. New Delhi. 9 September 2022. ProQuest 2711835121.
  29. ^ "Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson ... vs Competition Commission Of India And ... on 30 March, 2016". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  30. ^ "Micromax Informatics Limited vs Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ.)". Competition Commission of India. 12 November 2013.
  31. ^ Muralidharan, Sahithya (2016-07-12). "Ericsson v. Micromax - A Kick-Start to SEP-FRAND Antitrust Jurisprudence in India". Kluwer Competition Law Blog. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  32. ^ Vaughan, Adam (2010-07-26). "Tata to sue Greenpeace over turtle game". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  33. ^ "Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International" (PDF). Global Freedom of Expression, Columbia University. 28 January 2011.
  34. ^ "Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International". Global Freedom of Expression, Columbia University. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  35. ^ Delhi High Court (2019-04-25). "Judgement for the State of Madhya Pradesh vs Union of India case" (PDF). LiveLaw. Retrieved 2023-08-17.
  36. ^ "Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. vs Micro Labs Limited on 18 November, 2020". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2024-02-09.
  37. ^ "Astrazeneca Ab & Anr. vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited on 20 July, 2021". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2024-02-09.
  38. ^ "PhonePe Private Limited vs. Ezy Services & Anr". Delhi High Court. 29 August 2022.
  39. ^ "Tube Investments of India Limited vs. Jagdamba Enterprises". Delhi High Court. 2 June 2022.
  40. ^ "FMC Corporation vs Natco Pharma". Delhi High Court. 5 December 2022.
  41. ^ Pilla, Viswanath (2023-01-13). "Natco Plea: Delhi high court sets aside Novartis patent". The Economic Times. ISSN 0013-0389. Retrieved 2024-02-09.
  42. ^ "Natco Pharma vs Novartis AG". Delhi High Court. 15 January 2023.
  43. ^ "Boehringer Ingelheim vs. Natco Pharma & Others" (PDF). Delhi High Court. 29 March 2023.
  44. ^ "Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. vs Suncity Sheets Private Limited And Anr. ... on 30 January, 2023". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2024-02-12.
  45. ^ "Bayer Healthcare Llc vs Natco Pharma Limited on 5 July, 2023". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2024-02-12.
  46. ^ "Vifor International Ltd. vs. MSN Laboratories & Ors" (PDF). Delhi High Court. 24 July 2023.
  47. ^ "Dolphin Mart Private Limited vs Avenue Supermarts Limited & Anr. on 21 August, 2023". indiankanoon.org. Retrieved 2024-02-12.
  48. ^ Madras High Court (18 May 2009). "M/S TVS Motor Company Limited vs M/S Bajaj Auto Limited on 18 May, 2009". indiankanoon.org.
  49. ^ a b Sijoria, Siddharth (28 June 2023). "J Sai Deepak is wrong: Indian democracy is not Hindu will". The Indian Express.
  50. ^ Sen, Raj Shekhar (24 July 2023). "Isolation, conservatism and buzzwords: What drives the lucrative market for right-wing influencers". newslaundry.
  51. ^ T. Mayura Priyan (2023-10-08). "Sanatana Dharma and the Dravidian Movement: A response to J. Sai Deepak — 2 – The Leaflet". theleaflet.in. Retrieved 2024-02-12.
  52. ^ Kumar, Utpal (2022-02-28). "The issue with St. Stephen's College isn't just confined to cancel culture; its very DNA is a problem". Firstpost. Retrieved 2024-02-12.
  53. ^ Shukla, Suchita (2023-09-01). "Karnataka Bar Council Ignores Demand By Lawyers' Organisation To Cancel Sai Deepak's Talk On UCC, Event Witnesses Huge Crowd". www.verdictum.in. Retrieved 2024-02-12.
  54. ^ Kumar, Abhishek (9 August 2023). "'BeerBiceps' Interview of J. Sai Deepak Violates Community Standards, But YouTube Won't Take It Down". The Wire. Retrieved 2024-02-13.
  55. ^ Menon, Vandana (2023-07-20). "Can Parliament be trusted with LGBTQ rights? Star lawyers Sai Deepak, Saurabh Kirpal debate". ThePrint. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
  56. ^ Bureau, The Hindu (2023-08-06). "Debate without draft Uniform Civil Code is a non-issue, says ex-CEC S.Y. Quraishi". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2024-02-14. {{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  57. ^ Kabilan, Kannalmozhi (2021-09-11). "The reality of the nationalism debate". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
  58. ^ "Decolonising India: Is Bharat trying to reinvent itself?". India Today. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
  59. ^ "Those in power must be held accountable". Star of Mysore. 2022-12-18. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
  60. ^ Basu, Prasenjit K. (2021-10-16). "Book transforms the discourse about 'coloniality' in Bharat". The Sunday Guardian Live. Retrieved 2023-06-12.
  61. ^ Kumar, Utpal (2022-09-06). "How India, a victim of conflicting colonialities, is coming out of slumber to reboot its tampered mind". Firstpost. Retrieved 2023-06-12.
  62. ^ Yadav, Yogendra (2022-05-06). "India needs to challenge colonialism in its own language. But solution isn't Hindu worldview". ThePrint. Retrieved 2023-06-12.
  63. ^ "Re-Discovering Bharat". Star of Mysore. 16 December 2022. ProQuest 2754825320.
Wikiquote has quotations related to J. Sai Deepak.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Sai_Deepak&oldid=1210340267"