New Delhi: The Supreme Court last week sought a response from Chennai-based capsule manufacturing firm Softgel Healthcare on an appeal filed by US pharmaceutical Pfizer, in a case that could “settle the law” on execution of Letters Rogatory—a request from a foreign court for judicial assistance—particularly when it involves sovereignty concerns and reciprocity.
This case places before the Supreme Court a broader question: whether judicial comity obliges Indian courts to assist foreign litigation as a matter of course, or if such assistance remains discretionary and limited, especially where information (“pre-trial discovery”) sought from non-party Indian entities can be potentially used in trial proceedings in a foreign court.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice J. Bagchi was hearing Pfizer’s appeal against a November 2025 Madras High Court judgement that denied the US pharma company’s request for documents from the Indian drug manufacturer for a patent suit in the US.
The Letters Rogatory was issued by a United States court in a patent dispute involving Pfizer.
During the hearing on 29 January, CJI Kant said that the execution of Letters Rogatory cannot “come at the cost of India’s sovereignty”. The court then issued a notice to the Chennai-based firm. “We are issuing notice to settle the law,” said CJI Kant.
The top court noted that the list of documents Pfizer requested included broad categories such as “all documents and electronically stored information that refer or relate to testing and development” and “all communications” regarding polymorphic forms.
Comity of courts & Letters Rogatory
The principle of comity of courts—derived from the Latin comitas, meaning courtesy—refers to the mutual respect and deference courts of one jurisdiction extend to the judicial acts of another; not as a matter of obligation, but of convenience and respect.
Letters Rogatory are one mechanism through which comity operates, allowing foreign courts to seek judicial assistance for evidence collection within another jurisdiction. However, their execution is not definite.
Speaking with ThePrint, advocate L. Badri Narayanan, explained that by nature, rogatory letters are requests and are not orders capable of execution.
Executive Partner at Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan Attorneys, Narayanan has worked in multiple jurisdictions including the US and India.
“While Indian courts are not bound to execute rogatory letters of foreign states, as a matter of comity, such requests are generally expected to be performed, unless they militate against India’s public policy or interests. However, the Hague Evidence Convention is binding on contracting states and a request made under it by a contracting state must be complied with in accordance with the receiving state’s internal laws and any refusal by the receiving state must be within the four corners of the Convention.” he added.
Speaking on the limits of comity of courts, Narayanan said that under Indian law, they are “self-imposed, as a rogatory letter is never binding to begin with. Generally, such requests are not recognised when they require the collection of evidence in a manner that is not accepted under Indian law or the practice of Indian courts.”
Examples of cases where Indian courts would not recognize a rogatory letter, he said, are where they are for production of evidence from “a non-party to the foreign litigation, amount to pre‑trial discovery, or where the requests are vague and omnibus without supporting reasons for relevance, or resemble a fishing and roving inquiry”.
The Madras HC had denied Pfizer’s request in line with these contentions, prompting the US company to move the Supreme Court.
‘Limited to parties’
During the hearing in the Madras HC, Softgel told the court that “the Letters Rogatory are limited to the parties to the proceedings and no fishing expedition in the guise of evidence collection be permitted through the assistance of the Court”.
A core pillar of the HC division bench’s decision was India’s specific stance on international judicial assistance. While India is a signatory to the Hague Convention, it has explicitly reserved its right under Article 23 not to execute requests for the purpose of “obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents”.
Article 23 allows states to refuse to execute Letters of Request for “pre-trial discovery of documents”.
The bench observed that Pfizer’s request was “undoubtedly an attempt to collect pre-trial documents”. The court emphasised that while domestic law permits honouring foreign requests, this is strictly subject to the notifications issued by the Indian government.
“Republic of India has declared that it will not execute Letters of Request issued pursuant to Article 23… for the purpose of obtaining pre-trial discovery,” said the ruling.
The bench further highlighted a critical context: Pfizer’s own patent application for the drug in question, Tafamidis/Vyndamax, had been refused by the Indian Patent Office.
The court reasoned that forcing an Indian company to disclose sensitive manufacturing processes to a foreign entity, whose patent rights were specifically rejected within India, would be a violation of the country’s legal interests.
The judges said that “sovereignty of the Country cannot be put to back burners” even in the spirit of international comity.
The high court division bench concluded that Softgel, in fact, had a right to refuse (as argued by the company) to provide evidence under Article 11 of the Hague Convention, since the request prejudiced Indian sovereignty and bypassed domestic patent rejections.
Consequently, the division bench set aside the single judge’s judgment and dismissed Pfizer’s applications for the appointment of a commission.
Pfizer filed applications before the Madras HC seeking appointment of a local commissioner to collect evidence, record testimony, set up a confidentiality club, and transmit the collected material to the US court.
The court held that the request was not in conformity with the Hague Convention and that the “privilege to refuse also arises from Article 23 read with the notification of the Government of India”.
Emphasising that it is not possible to exhaustively lay down the circumstances under which Letters Rogatory should be executed as a matter of comity, Narayanan said the Supreme Court would “clarify the binding/non-binding nature of the Hague Convention on contracting states and also the scope of refusal under the national security and sovereignty exclusion”.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: Adani Group overpaid for coal imports, then charged Indians extra for power, claims FT report