Some statutory bars are absolute — but “absolute” does not mean “unexplained.” Section 4 of the Patents Act keeps atomic-energy inventions out of the patent system, deferring to the Central Government under the Atomic Energy Act, 1962. In Huntington Alloys Corporation v. Union of India [Writ Petition No. 2086 of 2021], the Bombay High Court reaffirmed that even this absolute embargo must be applied through a reasoned, speaking order — and set aside a refusal that was anything but.
A boiler alloy, and a one-line refusal
The 2010 national-phase application — “Ultra Supercritical Boiler Header Alloy and Method of Preparation” — concerned a high-temperature nickel-cobalt-chromium alloy for boiler header pipes in power-generation boilers operating at 538–816°C. Despite a 2012 examination request, it sat unexamined until, in November 2020, the Deputy Controller forwarded it to the Department of Atomic Energy with a prima facie view that it was atomic-energy ineligible, seeking directions under Section 20(6) of the Atomic Energy Act. In April 2021 the DAE issued a brief order stating the invention “does relate to atomic energy,” and directed refusal — with no reasons. The applicant moved the writ court.
Even an absolute bar must speak
The Respondents argued that the Central Government’s determination is final and that there is no scope for a hearing under Section 14 in atomic-energy matters. The Court was unpersuaded. It situated Section 4 within a settled line — Merck Eprova AG (Calcutta HC), Ceres Intellectual Property (Bombay HC) and ER Squibb & Sons (Delhi HC) — holding that invoking the atomic-energy bar does not dispense with the duty to give reasons. Reasons, the Court memorably said, are the “heartbeat” of any decision; non-speaking orders defeat transparency, accountability and judicial review, and reflect non-application of mind.
The Court added a practical, rights-based dimension through Section 65. Tracing the provision’s evolution — pre-2005 it allowed refusal of pending applications and revocation; post-2005 it is confined to revocation — the Court held that what survives across both regimes is the Section 65(2) power to permit amendment of the complete specification. Had reasons been given, the applicant could have used Section 65(2) to amend and remove any perceived atomic-energy linkage; the silence denied that opportunity. The Court also noted the SHANTI Act, 2025, which relaxes the embargo for welfare purposes but was not yet in force at the date of decision, and clarified that the 2005 change does not require a patent to be granted first and revoked later where it squarely falls within the bar.
Why it matters
Huntington Alloys is a clean restatement that procedural fairness travels even into the most jurisdictionally sensitive corner of patent law. For applicants in metallurgy, nuclear-adjacent materials and energy technologies, the takeaways are concrete: a Section 4 refusal must identify why the invention relates to atomic energy, especially where the specification expressly says otherwise; and the Section 65(2) amendment route is a live tool to engineer around the bar. The order was set aside and remitted to the DAE for a reasoned decision, with liberty to the applicant to file additional material. With the SHANTI Act waiting in the wings, expect this corner of the Act to get busier — and reasons to matter more, not less.
Sources & further reading: Section 4, Patents Act; Section 20, Atomic Energy Act; Section 65, Patents Act; SHANTI Act, 2025.
Educational note: This case summary is general information, not legal advice.