'Will US Authorities Cooperate If Indians Seek Information?' : Supreme Court Asks Pfizer On Plea To Access Indian Company's Docs

The Supreme Court today, while hearing a plea by US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, asked whether foreign courts and Western Authorities would cooperate in providing information to India, when it comes to abiding by the principle of reciprocity.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing the challenge to the Madras High Court order, which refused Pfizer to enforce Letters Rogatory issued by a United States court to obtain documents and testimony from Chennai-based Softgel Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.

During the hearing, the CJI flagged concerns over Indian sovereignty and remarked, "When you want to have information, you want to hijack information from any part of the globe. When the question comes of getting information, then you impose your superiority."

Letters Rogatory are formal requests sent by a court in one country to a court in another country seeking assistance in gathering evidence for a legal proceeding.

Pfizer owns a U.S. patent for crystalline forms of Tafamidis, the drug sold as Vyndamax. The company has sued Cipla and Zenara (now Hikma) in the District Court of Delaware for alleged infringement. During those proceedings, Pfizer claimed that Softgel was manufacturing the drug for the defendants and sought documents relating to testing, development and manufacturing processes through Letters Rogatory addressed to Indian authorities.

Sr Advocate Amit Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, stressed urgency in the matter, considering that the trial at the Delaware Court is scheduled to start on April 27.

He added that the Letter Rogatory works on the principle of reciprocity, and when Indian Authorities would issue such letters, the foreign courts would also comply, based on this principle.

The bench, while agreeing to issue notice in the matter, clarified that the matter will be considered to determine whether such reciprocity is also observed in foreign courts when Indian companies/authorities seek such information.

The CJI opined: "It's not that we are issuing notice because we are convinced with you, we are issuing notice for a different purpose- we would like to know if an Indian company goes there and seeks an order, will they issue ?"

He further added, "We will not compromise with the sovereignty of our country. We are issuing notice because we want to settle the law."

The CJI also said that the Union should be a party in the case. He remarked :

"To my mind, the Union should be a party here; we would like to have their opinion also. It's not a question of prejudice, it's a question of sanctity and sovereignty."

However, Sibal clarified that "sovereignty doesn't come into it, they are a private party."

The CJI, disagreeingly, replied, "It does come! When you want to have information, you want to hijack information from any part of the globe. When the question comes of getting information, then you impose your superiority."

Before The Madras High Court

The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar overturned the single bench decision which earlier alowed Pfizer to obtain the said documents.

Pfizer owns a U.S. patent for crystalline forms of Tafamidis, the drug sold as Vyndamax. The company has sued Cipla and Zenara (now Hikma) in the District Court of Delaware for alleged infringement. During those proceedings, Pfizer claimed that Softgel was manufacturing the drug for the defendants and sought documents relating to testing, development and manufacturing processes through Letters Rogatory addressed to Indian authorities.

Pfizer and its associated companies asked the Madras High Court to appoint a commissioner with powers to collect documents, record testimony and create a confidentiality club. Softgel objected. The company told the Court it was not a party to the U S litigation and argued that the disclosure sought would damage its confidential manufacturing data and business interests. Softgel also noted that Pfizer's corresponding Indian patent application had already been rejected by the Indian Patent Office and that an appeal is still pending.

The Single Judge had accepted Pfizer's arguments and allowed the petitions. The Division Bench disagreed. It found that the evidence sought lacked the clear, specific description required under Article 3 of the Hague Convention and that the documents listed were in the nature of procuring pre-trial documents. The Bench added that India has formally invoked Article 23 of the Convention, which allows a country to refuse execution of Letters Rogatory aimed at pre-trial discovery.

The High Court allowed Softgel's appeals, set aside the Single Judge's order and dismissed Pfizer's applications seeking enforcement of the Letters Rogatory.

Case Details : PFIZER INC AND ORS. Versus SOFTGEL HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED| SLP(C) No. 2868-2869/2026