WTO Law in Domestic Law: The Novartis Case

The status of WTO law in domestic law varies a bit from country to country, and is sometimes not very clear.  The recent Indian court decision in the Novartis case was interesting, as the court basically said that any consideration of consistency of Indian law with the TRIPS Agreement should be done in WTO dispute settlement, not in Indian courts. Here's a link to the decision: http://judis.nic.in/chennai/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=11121  The key portion seems to be this part:

the Constitutional validity of section 3(d) alone is in challenge, both on the ground  that it violates  not only Article 14 of the Constitution of India but also on the ground that it is not in compliance  to "TRIPS".

...

(a) Assuming that the amended section is in clear breach of Article 27 of "TRIPS" and thereby  suffers the wise of irrationality and arbitrariness violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India, could the courts in India have jurisdiction to test the validity of the amended section in the back drop of such alleged violation of "TRIPS"?  
    OR
Even if the amended section cannot be struck down by this court for the reasons stated  above, cannot this court grant a declaratory relief  that the  amended  section  is  not  in  compliance  of Article 27 of "TRIPS"?.

   
  (b)  If it is held that courts in India have jurisdiction  to  go into the  above  referred  to issue, then, is the amended section compatible  or non-compatible to Article 27 of "TRIPS"?

...

 8.  Even otherwise, we are of the considered view that in  whichever manner one may name it namely,  International Covenant, International Treaty, International Agreement  and so  on and so forth, yet, such documents are essentially  in the  nature of a contract.  In Head Money cases namely,  the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States reported in 112 U.S. 580, it is held as follows:

"A  treaty  is primarily a compact  between independent Nations, and depends for   the enforcement  of its provisions on the  honor  and  the interest of the governments which are parties to it."

Therefore there cannot be any difficulty at all in examining such treaties on principles applied in examining  contracts.  Under  these circumstances, when a dispute is brought before a   court  arising  out of an International  Treaty,  courts would  not  be  committing any error in deciding   the  said dispute  on principles applicable to  contracts.   In  other words,  the  court  has  to  analyse   the  terms  of   such International  Treaty; the enforceability of  the  same;  by whom and against whom; and if there is violation, is there a mechanism for solving that dispute under the treaty  itself? Based  on  such  construction of  the  International  Treaty namely,  "TRIPS",  it  is  argued very  strenuously  by  the learned  counsels appearing for the contesting parties  that there is a settlement mechanism under the Treaty itself  and therefore   even   assuming  without  conceding   that   the petitioner  has the right to enforce the terms of  the  said Treaty,  yet, he must go only before the Dispute  Settlement Body  provided  under the "TRIPS" itself.    Article  64  of "TRIPS" is pressed into service to sustain this point.    It is  contended  by Mr.Anand Grover learned counsel  that  the settlement mechanism provided under Article 64 of "TRIPS" is governed  by the procedure as understood by the World  Trade Organisation.   Mr.Anand  Grover  learned  counsel  took  us through the said Dispute Settlement Understanding.   Article 1  of  the  Dispute Settlement Understanding,  defines   the areas covered under that Rule.  Article 1 declares that  the agreements  listed in Appendix 1 to the said Rule  would  be covered  by the procedure.  "TRIPS" is mentioned as  one  of the  agreements in Appendix 1 (B) - Annexure 1C.    We  have been   taken  through  the  above  referred  to  Rules   and Procedures governing the settlement of disputes and we  find that it contains comprehensive provisions for resolving  the disputes  arising  out  of  any  agreements  enumerated   in Appendix  1  to  that Rules.  Under the  Rules  there  is  a Dispute Settlement Body.  The manner of it's constitution is also  provided  therein.  Various  steps  to  sort  out  the problem  arising  out of an agreement are provided  therein. Article  17  of  the  Rules referred to  above  provides  an appellate  review  against the order passed  by  the  panel. Therefore  we have no difficulty at all that Article  64  of "TRIPS"  read  with World Trade Organisation's understanding on Rules and Procedures governing the settlement of disputes provides a comprehensive settlement mechanism of any dispute arising  under  the  agreement.   Article  3  of  the  Rules declares  that the dispute settlement system  of  the  World Trade Organisation is to provide security and predictability to   the   multilateral  trading  system.    When   such   a comprehensive  dispute settlement mechanism is  provided  as indicated  above and when it cannot be disputed that  it  is binding on the member States, we see no reason at all as  to why  the  petitioner, which itself is a part of that  member State,  should not be directed to have the dispute  resolved under  the  dispute settlement mechanism referred to  above.  Several nations in the world are parties to "TRIPS" as  well as  the  "WTO"  agreement.   The agreements  are  discussed, finalised  and  entered  into at the  higher  level  of  the nations  participating  in such meeting.   Therefore  it  is binding  on  them.  When such participating nations,  having regard  to  the  terms  of  the agreement  and  the  complex problems that may arise out of the agreement between  nation to nation, decide that every participating nation shall have a  Common Dispute Settlement Mechanism, we see no reason  at all as to why we must disregard it.  As we began saying that any International Agreement possesses the basic nature of an ordinary  contract  and when courts respect  the  choice  of jurisdiction fixed under such ordinary contract, we  see  no compelling  reasons to deviate from such  judicial  approach when  we  consider  the  choice  of  forum  arrived  at   in International Treaties.  Since we have held that this  court has  no  jurisdiction to decide the validity of the  amended section, being in violation of Article 27 of "TRIPS", we are not  going  into  the  question whether  any  individual  is conferred  with an enforceable right under "TRIPS"  or  not. For  the  same reason, we also hold that we are not deciding issue  No.(b)  namely,   whether  the   amended  section  is compatible  to Article 27 of "TRIPS" or not.

(emphasis added)