Atomic Refusals: India’s government agencies must give reasons for rejecting patents

Summary: The Bombay High Court’s landmark Huntington Alloys ruling clarifies that government agencies cannot issue blanket, unreasoned refusals, especially under the sensitive “atomic energy” exclusion. Among other things, the decision criticises arbitrary rejections, and calls for transparent, detailed justifications. In doing so, it  provides clarity on the framework for global tech and engineering firms navigating India’s patent landscape.

Introduction

Until 2025, India’s public policy prohibited the grant of patents for inventions relating to atomic energy in order to keep such technologies under Government control. The patentability of such inventions was governed by a combination of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and Section 4 of the Patents Act, 1970. The scope and application of these provisions recently came under judicial scrutiny before the Bombay High Court, in Huntington Alloys Corporation v. Union of India & Ors. (WP 2086/2021, decision dated 7 April 2026).

Background

The patent application in question, filed in 2008 under the national phase route by the US-based Huntington Alloys, concerned a high temperature nickel-cobalt-chromium alloy intended for use in ultra-supercritical boiler applications.

The applicant filed a request for examination in March 2012. In November 2020, the Deputy Controller of Patents expressed a prima facie view that the invention could not be granted a patent under Section 4, Patents Act, and referred the matter to the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) under Section 20(6), Atomic Energy Act. In April 2021, DAE concluded, without giving any reasons, that the invention “does relate to Atomic Energy” and directed refusal. Aggrieved by these orders, the present appeal was filed.

Applicable statutory framework

Significantly, the policy and legislative framework concerning atomic energy-related inventions underwent a drastic shift in December 2025, with the “The Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act, 2025” (the SHANTI Act), repealing the Atomic Energy Act, 1962, among other things, with a view to modernise India’s nuclear governance infrastructure. However, the SHANTI Act had not come into effect (and is yet to come into force fully) when this matter was considered. As a result, atomic energy-related inventions were subject to the following framework:

1. Section 4, Patents Act (unamended): This provision prohibited the grant of patents for inventions relating to atomic energy falling within Section 20(1), Atomic Energy Act, 1962.
2. Section 20, Atomic Energy Act, 1962: This provision empowers the Central Government to inspect patent applications and direct the Controller to refuse applications involving inventions relating to atomic energy.
3. Section 65, Patents Act: This provision deals with revocation and amendment of patents in cases relating to atomic energy. Specifically, it provides that if the Central Government finds a patent relating to atomic energy not allowed under Section 20, Atomic Energy Act, then it can direct the Controller to revoke the patent after giving notice to the patentee and other persons affected. However, prior to revoking the patent, the Controller may allow the patentee to amend the complete specification instead of revoking the patent.

Petitioner’s case

Huntington Alloys contended that the refusal orders were flawed and unreasoned. They argued that the invention concerns a boiler-header alloy for high-temperature applications and does not involve ‘atomic energy’ defined under the Atomic Energy Act (i.e., energy released from atomic nuclei as a result of any process including fission and fusion). They also argued that, had reasons been disclosed, they could have meaningfully addressed concerns and explored statutory routes such as amendment.

Respondents’ case

The Respondents (which included the government, the Patent Office, and the DAE), argued that as the invention contained niobium and tantalum compositions, it potentially fell within the Section 4 bar, thus warranting a reference to DAE. Once DAE concluded the invention related to atomic energy, its decision was final under the statutory scheme, leaving no scope for a hearing before the Patent Office at that stage or for judicial intervention.

Issues before the Court

1. Was the DAE’s direction refusing the application sustainable, being a non-speaking order?
2. Did the statutory scheme permit an applicant to take remedial steps (including by amending the specification) to avoid refusal of their application?

Court’s findings

1. Patentability of ‘atomic energy’ inventions:

After considering the applicable statutory framework, the Court reaffirmed that inventions relating to atomic energy could not be patented in India due to the statutory bar imposed under Section 4, Patents Act, and Section 20, Atomic Energy Act. The Court noted that the legislative purpose behind the latter statute was to place atomic energy under state control, and the Central Government was empowered to determine whether an invention fell within Section 20(1), triggering the Section 4 patent bar.

2. Amendment of specification

Under Section 65(2), Patents Act, a patentee can amend the complete specification where the invention is found to relate to atomic energy, thereby providing an opportunity to avoid revocation of the patent.

Section 65 itself underwent an amendment in 2005. Prior to the amendment, the language of Section 65 referred to both patent applications and granted patents. Specifically, the Controller could permit the applicant or patentee to amend the complete specification instead of refusing the application or revoking the patent. Following the 2005 amendment, however, references to “complete specification” were deleted, and the provision was confined to granted patents. Thus, according to the Respondents, the amended Section 65 limits the power only to revocation of granted patents, and the option of refusing to proceed with a patent application is no longer available.

The Court disagreed, and clarified that although the amended provision refers to revocation after grant, it does not imply that patent applications involving atomic energy must always first be granted and thereafter revoked. The Court also clarified that while the Central Government could direct the Controller to refuse to proceed with such applications, the patentee/applicant are allowed to amend the specification, so as to avoid complete rejection or revocation.

3. Reasoned orders

Critically, the Court found the DAE’s communication directing refusal entirely devoid of reasons. Given Huntington Alloys’ consistent stand that its invention does not relate to atomic energy, a bare conclusion that it “does relate to Atomic Energy” was held insufficient. The Court noted that the absence of reasons deprived the applicant of a meaningful opportunity to respond, including exploring the possibility of amending the complete specification to avoid the operation of Section 65(2) altogether.

The High Court accordingly set aside the impugned orders and directed that the patent application be reconsidered by the DAE through a reasoned order. The Court also permitted the applicant to submit additional material in support of its case. As the application was pending since 2010, the Court directed authorities to process matters expeditiously.

Practical takeaways

Although the statutory framework has since undergone considerable changes (with the SHANTI Act now permitting patenting of inventions relating to nuclear energy, with corresponding amendments to Sections 4 and 65 of the Patents Act), this judgment nevertheless remains relevant.

From a purely procedural perspective, this decision clarifies that applicants faced with a Section 4 objection, can rebut it with technical material and, where feasible, explore claim/specification amendments.

More importantly, the decision firmly establishes that decisions of the Central Government refusing  patent applications relating to atomic or nuclear energy must disclose reasons, at least demonstrating why the invention is not patentable. The SHANTI Act offers opportunities for patenting inventions relating to nuclear energy, but restrictions remain on inventions concerning enrichment or isotopic separation substances, management of spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste, and the production of heavy water and its upgradation by isotopic separation. Thus, where the Central Government seeks to refuse a patent application on the basis of these continuing restrictions, reasons for such refusal must be clearly disclosed.