The Indian government has defended its decision to deviate from standard recruitment protocols in the selection of Unnat P. Pandit as the Controller General of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks (CGPDTM), stating that the decision was made in the national interest and due to institutional exigency. The Centre conveyed this stance in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, responding to allegations of a "backdoor appointment".

The All India Patent Officers' Welfare Association (AIPOWA) had approached the Supreme Court, seeking the quashing of Pandit's appointment, claiming it was illegal and in violation of established procedures. The association argued that Pandit was ineligible for the post and that the selection process was flawed because it did not involve an open advertisement as mandated by law. They also alleged that Pandit did not possess the essential Annual Confidentiality Reports necessary for the appointment.

In its defense, the government stated that a public advertisement was initially issued in 2020, but none of the applicants were found qualified, leaving the post vacant. Subsequently, the search panel exercised its discretion to identify individuals with a background in science, engineering, and law, along with demonstrated expertise in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). The government argued that this departure from the standard protocol was a "considered and reasoned administrative response" taken in view of national interest and institutional needs.

The AIPOWA's challenge to Pandit's appointment isn't new. They had previously filed a petition in the Delhi High Court, which was rejected. The association then moved to the Supreme Court, challenging the appointment on the grounds of ineligibility and a flawed selection process. The Supreme Court acknowledged the plea and requested a response from the Centre and Pandit.

Furthermore, the AIPOWA alleged that some of its members faced intimidation and threats of transfer for supporting the appeal in the Supreme Court. They claimed that officers were asked to disassociate themselves from the case, and the office of the CGPDTM allegedly refused to address their grievances due to their involvement in the legal challenge. The association argued that this "intimidating environment" led to some officers resigning from the association.

Pandit's appointment has been controversial since its inception. Besides the allegations of procedural lapses, his tenure has also faced scrutiny regarding the outsourcing of patent and trademark grants to contractual employees. A legal opinion from the Union law ministry reportedly deemed over three lakh patents/trademarks approved by outsourced employees as invalid. Additionally, a committee constituted by the Union Commerce and Industry Ministry allegedly indicted Pandit for administrative lapses in purchasing personal computers for his offices at an inflated cost.

The Supreme Court's examination of this case is critical, as it raises important questions about the transparency and fairness of appointments to key positions and the adherence to established procedures. The court's decision will likely have significant implications for the functioning of the CGPDTM and the morale of its officers.