Section 24F of the Patents Act, 1970
Central Government and its officers not to be liable
An omitted provision that once protected the Central Government and its officers from suit for acts done in good faith under the exclusive rights chapter.
Official legal text
The number is still shown because Indian statutes are not renumbered when something is taken out. The provision is simply marked as omitted. Documents created before the change, including granted patents and decided cases, continue to cite it, so the reference has to remain understandable.
The authority is the enacted text, not this page. Where our wording and the official provision, or an applicable Gazette notification, do not match, the official material prevails.
What this section says, in plain language
The exclusive marketing rights chapter gave the Central Government real powers, including the power to allow another person to sell or distribute an article. Powers of that kind invite litigation from the party that loses money when they are used. This provision addressed that risk in the way Indian statutes commonly do: it said that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding would lie against the Central Government or any of its officers for anything done or intended to be done in good faith under that chapter.
Two limits are worth noting even now. The protection covered good faith action only, so it was never a licence for arbitrary or mala fide conduct, and it protected the government and its officers rather than private parties acting under a government permission. The provision was omitted by the Patents (Amendment) Act 2005 together with the rest of the chapter. Similar good faith protection for official action appears elsewhere in Indian legislation, and decisions of the Controller and the Central Government under the Act are in any event subject to the appeal, review and writ remedies that the legal system provides.
Why this section matters
Anyone examining the liability of officials for decisions taken under the transitional exclusive rights regime.
Only historically, in relation to acts done under that chapter before 2005.
Nothing today. It formerly created a good faith immunity for the Central Government and its officers.
Assuming either that officials were personally exposed for every decision, or that immunity extended to bad faith conduct.
How it works in practice
Good faith, and its edge
A law student in Bhopal preparing a moot problem asked why a statute that creates strong government powers usually also creates an immunity. The answer she wrote used this omitted provision as her illustration. The exclusive marketing rights chapter let the Central Government permit a third party to sell an article that another company had the exclusive right to sell. Whichever way an officer decided, one side stood to lose commercially and might sue. Without protection, officers would hesitate, and the public interest power would be worth little. So the chapter barred suits and prosecutions for anything done or intended to be done in good faith under it. Her note then marked the boundary carefully. Good faith is a condition, not a formality; the bar did not cover mala fide or arbitrary action, and it did not stop an affected party from challenging the decision itself through the remedies available in law.
Simplified illustration only. Actual legal outcomes depend on the facts.
Key points to remember
- The provision barred suits, prosecutions and other proceedings against the Central Government and its officers for good faith acts under the exclusive rights chapter.
- It protected official decision-making, not private parties, and it did not cover bad faith or arbitrary action.
- It was omitted by the Patents (Amendment) Act 2005 along with the rest of that chapter.
Connected provisions
Indian patent law works in two layers. The Act carries the substance and the Rules carry the machinery. Because the layers are amended by different processes and at different times, they are presented in separate blocks instead of being merged into one description.
Forms, deadlines and fees
Fees are prescribed in the First Schedule to the Patents Rules. Because the Schedule is revised from time to time, and charges different amounts to different categories of applicant and for physical as against electronic filing, this page describes the fee without stating a figure. How Indian patent fees work.
Related judgments
No judgment summaries appear here yet. Our process requires a legal review of each case note before publication, covering the citation, the court and the point actually decided. Until a note for this provision has passed that check, the section stays empty rather than carrying unverified material. How case notes are prepared.
Questions people ask about Section 24F
What does an immunity for acts done in good faith actually protect?
It protects the decision-maker from being sued or prosecuted personally for a decision taken honestly and within the powers given by the statute. It does not validate a decision that was wrong, and it does not protect dishonest, arbitrary or mala fide conduct. It also does not prevent the decision itself from being challenged through appeal, review or writ proceedings, which is a separate question from the personal liability of the officer.
Are decisions of the Controller open to challenge today?
Yes. The Act provides for appeals from specified decisions of the Controller to the High Court, following the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board by the Tribunals Reforms Act 2021. There are also provisions allowing a review of decisions or the setting aside of orders by the Controller in the manner set by the Rules, and the ordinary constitutional remedies remain available in appropriate cases.
Challenging or defending a decision under the Patents Act?
MYCrave Consultancy advises on Controller proceedings, reviews and appeals to the High Court.
You will be speaking with MYCrave Consultancy & Services, the firm that operates this platform. General questions are answered free; matter‑specific work is quoted before anything is done.