J. Sai Deepak

Jayakumar Sai Deepak
Deepak on a Rajya Sabha TV debate in 2017
Born	Jayakumar Sai Deepak (1985-11-23) November 23, 1985 Hyderabad, India
Nationality	Indian
Alma mater	Anna University IIT Kharagpur
YouTube information
Channel	J Sai Deepak
Subscribers	30.4 thousand
Total views	70,387
Last updated: 14 Feb 2024
Website	jsaideepak.com thedemandingmistress.blogspot.com

J. Sai Deepak (born 23 November 1985) is an Indian Hindutva activist, lawyer and author.

As a counsel, he practices before the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi. Deepak has been a counsel in multiple cases, mostly in the domains of intellectual property (IP) and constitutional law, particularly in pharmaceutical patent and trademark disputes.

Deepak first studied mechanical engineering at Anna University and then graduated in IP law from IIT Kharagpur's law school. He is most known for his arguments in the Sabarimala Temple women's entry case. He is known as a proponent of Hindu and Indic causes and an accomplished orator and debater.

Education

Deepak attended St. Anthony's High School, Hyderabad. He then completed his graduation in Mechanical Engineering from Anna University. He is a law graduate from IIT Kharagpur's Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law.

Career

Deepak was one of the counsels for the Internet and Mobile Association of India vs. State of Uttar Pradesh case, later clubbed into the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case. The cases related to freedom of speech on social media, which had been severely curbed by the Information Technology Act, 2000 which held posters criminally liable for their posts. The Supreme Court ruled Section 66 of the Act to be unconstitutional, and watered down Section 79 of the Act which had held intermediaries like tech companies responsible for illegal acts on their platforms.

Deepak is most famous for his representations in the case on the entry of women to Sabarimala Temple. He argued against the entry, stating that the Hindu deity Ayyappan observes naishtika brahmacharya ("lifelong celibacy"). He further argued that the deity is a living being and thus can avail the constitutional rights of religious liberty and freedom of religion granted by Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court allowed women's entry into the temple in a 4:1 verdict, with Justice Indu Malhotra, the only female judge on the bench, dissenting.

Deepak was also a counsel in a petition to allow priests of any caste to be priests at Sabarimala, the priesthood at the temple has historically been open to only Malayali Brahmins. Deepak argued that the norm was not caste discrimination, as Brahmins from other regions were also not allowed into the Sabarimala priesthood; he argued that this was the rule ordained by the deity and thus constitutionally protected by Articles 21 and 25, among other provisions. The case is still pending before the Kerala High Court.

Deepak represented the Travancore royal family for their right to manage the estates of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvanathpuram. Deepak used scriptures (eg. the Kerala Mahatmya), historical documents and agreements entered into by the royal family to prove that the takeover of the Padmanabhaswamy Temple by the Kerala government was illegal. The Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of the family. Deepak was one of two counsels for a petitioner who accused the state government of apathy/involvement in the 2021 West Bengal post-poll violence. The Calcutta High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners.

A sub judice case Deepak is involved in is the public interest litigation (PIL) against the marital rape exception in the Indian Penal Code. Deepak argued that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 already provides recourse for victims of marital rape, and that any further legislation on the issue needs to come from the Parliament, because the judiciary does not have the power to create new laws. The Delhi High Court delivered a split verdict which agreed that the Parliament had jurisdiction over the issue; the petitioners filed an appeal against the decision with the Supreme Court.

Deepak argued against the PIL seeking legal recognition for same-sex marriage. His premise for this case was the same as for the marital rape criminalization, that is, the judiciary does not have the power to create new laws. When the opposing counsels contended that the Constitution was a progressive liberal document, Deepak contended that it did have room for social conservatism. He also argued that granting legal status to same-sex marriage would open up the entire marital law corpus to new litigation, as the old definitions for divorce, adoption, inheritance, domestic violence, surrogacy as well as other laws would become obsolete. The Supreme Court denied recognition and marital rights in a 3:2 verdict, ceding the prerogative over the issue to the legislature.

Deepak was the counsel for Anand Ranganathan in the contempt of court case against the former for endorsing the criticism of Justice S. Muralidhar by S Gurumurthy and Vivek Agnihotri. The Justice had cancelled the arrest of Gautam Navlakha, who had allegedly contributed to the incitement of the 2018 Bhima Koregaon violence. Deepak argued that Ranganathan merely supported the right of the Justice's critics to criticize him as part of their freedom of expression, and that Ranganathan himself did not agree with the criticisms. The Delhi High Court closed the proceedings against Ranganathan.

Deepak is also the counsel for the royal family of Kashi in the case demanding a constitutional review of the Places of Worship Act, 1991, which freezes the status of all disputed religious structures as they were before Independence Day (15 August 1947).

Intellectual property cases

Deepak was one of the counsels working under leading counsel Salman Khurshid for the Competition Commission of India (CCI) in a case filed by the Swedish telecom major Ericsson. The CCI had ruled against Ericsson in a case filed by the Indian smartphone companies Micromax Informatics and Intex Technologies, where they alleged that Ericsson had used its dominant portfolio of GSM technology to solicit unfair royalties and derail their IPOs. Ericsson alleged that the CCI did not have jurisdiction over the case. The Delhi High Court ruled that the CCI did have jurisdiction over the case, in a landmark ruling on antitrust law in India.

Deepak was one of the counsels for Greenpeace in a case filed by Tata Sons alleging trademark infringement by the former through its 'Turtle vs. Tata' online game. The game displayed the endangered Olive ridley sea turtles fighting against the Tata logo, referring to the risk posed to the turtles due to the construction of Dhamra Port by Tata Sons. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat of the Delhi High Court (later a Supreme Court judge) ruled that the parody game did not infringe on the trademark, in a ruling seen as a landmark for freedom of expression.

Deepak was involved in the Basmati rice Geographical Indication dispute where he represented the Government of Madhya Pradesh. The Delhi High Court in a 2019 judgement voided the central government's exclusion of Madhya Pradesh from the list of states granted the right to grow Basmati rice. Deepak was the leading counsel for USV, Micro Labs and MSN Laboratories in a case filed by AstraZeneca alleging patent infringement by Indian companies manufacturing Dapagliflozin, which AstraZeneca held the patent for. The Delhi High Court did not grant an injunction in 2020; and dismissed the case in 2021 after directing AstraZeneca to reimburse the legal costs for all the defendants.

Deepak was the arguing counsel for BharatPe in a case filed by PhonePe alleging trademark infringement by the former who had used the word 'Pe' (a play on Pay) in its trademark, which the latter claimed it had the trademark for. The Delhi High Court dismissed the case and granted the trademark to BharatPe. Deepak was also the arguing counsel for Tube Investments of India Limited where they alleged that Jagdamba Enterprises had infringed on their trademark for the 'Diamond' brand of automobile parts by selling counterfeits under the same name. The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Tube.

Deepak was the leading counsel for Natco Pharma in a case where FMC Corporation claimed process patents for production of chlorantraniliprole. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the patent claims and directed FMC to reimburse Natco for the legal costs incurred. Deepak has also been the leading counsel for Natco in three other patent disputes. In the first case, Swedish pharma major Novartis claimed Natco had infringed on its patent for Entresto by manufacturing a Valsartan and Sacubitril combination medication similar to Entresto. The Delhi High Court nullified the patent granted to Novartis as the it was ruled to be in violation of statutory provisions. In the second case, the German pharma major Boehringer Ingelheim claimed Natco and other Indian pharma companies had infringed on its patent for Linagliptin. The Delhi High Court dismissed the case and ordered Boehringer Ingelheim to reimburse Natco and the other defendants for their costs.

Deepak was the leading counsel for Suncity Sheets in a case filed by Jindal Stainless Limited (Hisar) claiming that Suncity had infringed on their trademark by using the name 'Jindal' in their product names. The Delhi High Court dismissed the case in a ruling which further defined the cause of action principle. Deepak was also a leading counsel for Natco Pharma in a case filed by the German pharma major Bayer seeking the evergreening of its patent for Regorafenib. The Delhi High Court dismissed the case.

Deepak was the leading counsel for MSN and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories in a case filed by CSL Vifor's Indian arm alleging infringement on its patent for ferric carboxymaltose, a supplement used to treat anemia. The Delhi High Court dismissed the claim. Deepak was also the leading counsel for Avenue Supermarts (trade name DMart) in a trademark dispute where Dolphin Mart claimed it had the sole right to use the name DMart. The Delhi High Court rejected the claim.

Views

Deepak is a regular columnist in The Indian Express, Firstpost and Open The Magazine. He also writes two blogs, one named Yukti on constitutional theory and legal philosophy; and one named The Demanding Mistress on civil, commercial and intellectual property law. An article in the latter blog was cited by the Madras High Court in its decision on the TVS Motor Company vs. Bajaj Auto Limited intellectual property dispute.

Deepak is a Hindutva activist. He believes that the several good qualities of the knowledge systems of ancient Hindu civilization, mixed with the good qualities of modern Education systems, can be a template for modern Indian education systems, which he considers to have multiple drawbacks. He opposes the Dravidian movement and Periyarite thought, and claims they are Western interventions in Southern Indian faultlines. He was criticized for his article where he discussed limitations imposed by the Indian Constitution against Hindu majoritarian expression. He had criticized the provisions for Hindu majority authority being subject to judicial review and being overruled if it conflicts with constitutional morality.

Deepak's talks on the Karnataka hijab ban at St. Stephen's College, and on minority rights at Jamia Millia Islamia respectively, were cancelled despite receiving permission in what was termed by some journalists as the advent of cancel culture and deplatforming in India. Deepak's talk on the Uniform Civil Code in Bengaluru at a Karnataka Bar Association event was faced with opposition from a group of lawyers who wanted the event to be cancelled in an attempted case of deplatforming, but it wasn't.

Deepak was criticized for his statements on the BeerBiceps podcast hosted by Ranveer Allahbadia. The host had asked him to name three people he would like to see permanently leave India, he named Barkha Dutt, Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar, and reasoned that they had propagated anti-national thought. As a result, these three faced online trolling where they were asked to leave the country.

Deepak has participated in multiple debates, the prominent ones being with Saurabh Kirpal on same sex marriage; with S. Y. Quraishi and Manish Tewari on the Uniform Civil Code; with Shashi Tharoor on decoloniality; and with AG Krishna Menon and Sanjay Nirupam on nationalism. Deepak is also a frequent orator, having spoken at multiple universities, as well as at literature and cultural festivals.

External links

• Deepak's articles at SpicyIP