India

Primary tabs

Caselaw

This public interest litigation case (PIL) was filed via Article 32 of the Indian Constitution directly before the Supreme Court of India and petitioned the Court to direct the State of Uttar Pradesh (UP) to take steps to end child labor. Thereafter a Court-appointed committee reported the enormity of child exploitation in UP’s carpet industry, finding that many children were kidnapped from Bihar, that the industry largely employed minor children under 14 years, and that many experienced physical abuse. 

Rudul Sah was arrested in 1953 on charges of murdering his wife. He was acquitted by an Additional Sessions Judge, in 1968, who directed his release from jail, pending further orders. Rudul Sah languished in jail for 14 years after his acquittal, until his plight was highlighted in the media in 1982 and led to the filing of the PIL on his behalf.

Tras un informe periodístico sobre una mujer indigente que falleció en una calle muy concurrida cuatro días después de dar a luz a una beba, el Tribunal abrió esta causa de interés público por iniciativa propia. El Tribunal solicitó a la organización Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), un miembro de la Red-DESC, que presentara amicus sobre la situación en Delhi de la salud de las mujeres indigentes embarazadas y que se encuentran en el período de lactancia, y que sugiera medidas adecuadas.

Following a newspaper report regarding a destitute woman who died on a busy street four days after giving birth to a baby girl, the Court brought this public interest litigation (PIL) on its own motion. The Court also asked the Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), an ESCR-Net member organization, to file an amicus brief on the status of maternal health for destitute pregnant and lactating women in Delhi, and to suggest appropriate remedies. HRLN’s amicus outlined myriad state failures to implement government schemes providing for food and health services to women and marginalized groups.

Los peticionarios, miembros de una comunidad tribal, Gadia Lohar, migraron desde Rajasthan a Nueva Delhi en 1965 donde se establecieron  en barrios marginales (“jhuggies”) de una localidad de Nueva Delhi conocida como Gadia Lohar Basti (o Prem Nagar). Habían vivido en esta zona durante más de 40 años cuando el gobierno demolió sus viviendas.

The petitioners, members of a nomadic tribal community called Gadia Lohar, migrated from Rajasthan to New Delhi in 1965 and settled in slum clusters (“jhuggies”) in a New Delhi locality known as Gadia Lohar Basti (or Prem Nagar).  They had lived in the locality for over 40 years when their huts were demolished and they contended that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, and the Slum Department violated their right to shelter, when they did not provide for their relocation to settlements with basic facilities.  Respondents alleged tha

En marzo de 2008, Bayer HealthCare LLC, una subsidiaria que pertenece totalmente a Bayer Corporation, obtuvo una patente otorgada por la Oficina de Patentes de la India conforme a la ley (Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940, DCA9) y las normas (Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945, DCR) aplicables para “sorafenib tosylate” (ST), un medicamento usualmente recetado para tratar el cáncer renal avanzado. Posteriormente, Bayer HealthCare LLC cedió sus derechos sobre el medicamento patentado en India a Bayer Corporation (“Bayer”).

En su demanda penal, Chakraborty adujo que comenzó una relación sentimental con Gautam en abril de 1989 mientras él era profesor y ella, estudiante, en el Baptist College de Kohima, Nagaland. Según Chakraborty, Gautam profesó su amor y la engañó para tener relaciones sexuales con afirmaciones falsas, como que se casaría con ella tras obtener el permiso de sus padres.

Miss Chakraborty, in a criminal complaint, alleged that she began an affair in April 1989 with Chakraborty while he was a lecturer and she was a student at Baptist College in Kohima, Nagaland.  She asserted Gautam professed his love and deceived her into sexual intercourse with false assurances that he would marry her after receiving his parents’ consent.

In March 2008, Bayer HealthCare LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bayer Corporation, was granted a subject patent by India’s Patent Office, pursuant to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940 (DCA) and Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 (DCR),  for “sorafenib tosylate” (ST), commonly prescribed for treatment of advanced renal cancer.  Bayer HealthCare LLC subsequently assigned its titles to the patented drug in India to Bayer Corporation (“Bayer”).