20 Leading Supreme Court Cases on the Copyright Act, 1957 | Copyright Law in India
Copyright Act, 1957 – Part 2: 20 Leading Supreme Court Cases on the Copyright Act, 1957
Blog by:
Jayprakash B. Somani
Advocate, Supreme Court of India & IP
Cell: PA 9322188701
www.jayprakashsomani.com
www.supremecourtlawfirm.com
1. R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 1613; (1979) 1 SCC 118
Facts
The plaintiff alleged that the film New Delhi copied his play Hum Hindustani.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that there was no infringement.
Ratio Decidendi
Copyright protects only the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves.
Similarity of theme alone is insufficient.
The “overall impression test” was evolved.
2. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak
Citation: (2008) 1 SCC 1; AIR 2008 SC 809
Facts
Publishers of SCC law reports claimed copyright over edited judgments and headnotes.
Decision
The Court granted limited copyright protection.
Ratio
Introduced the “modicum of creativity” test.
Mere labour (“sweat of the brow”) is insufficient.
Editorial skill and arrangement may qualify for protection.
3. Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association
Citation: AIR 1977 SC 1443; (1977) 2 SCC 820
Facts
Issue related to ownership of music and lyrics used in films.
Decision
Producer was held to be first owner of copyright in cinematograph films unless there is a contract to the contrary.
Ratio
Composer and lyricist lose separate performing rights once incorporated into a film unless reserved contractually.
Clarified Sections 14 and 17 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
4. Academy of General Education v. B. Malini Mallya
Citation: (2009) 4 SCC 256
Facts
Dispute regarding adaptation of Yakshagana literary works.
Decision
The Court protected the original dramatic work.
Ratio
Adaptation without authorization amounts to infringement.
Literary and dramatic works receive broad protection.
5. Entertainment Network (India) Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd.
Citation: (2008) 13 SCC 30
Facts
Radio broadcasters sought compulsory licences to broadcast songs.
Decision
The Supreme Court recognized compulsory licensing powers.
Ratio
Copyright is not absolute.
Public interest and access are relevant considerations.
Interpreted Section 31 of the Copyright Act.
6. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Music Broadcast Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: (2012) 5 SCC 488
Facts
Concerned royalty fixation for FM radio broadcasting.
Decision
The Court upheld the statutory licensing framework.
Ratio
Balance between copyright owner’s rights and public dissemination.
Reasonable royalty principles recognized.
7. Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd.
Citation: (2010) 1 SCC 161
Facts
Dispute over unauthorized use of sound recordings.
Decision
The Court restrained infringement.
Ratio
Sound recordings enjoy independent copyright protection.
Unauthorized reproduction amounts to infringement.
8. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nagoti Venkataramana
Citation: AIR 1996 SC 218
Facts
Case involved sale of pirated copyrighted material.
Decision
Conviction upheld.
Ratio
Mens rea is not always essential for copyright offences.
Strong anti-piracy approach adopted.
9. Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia
Citation: (2004) 3 SCC 90
Facts
Action for injunction involving intellectual property infringement.
Decision
Court granted injunction.
Ratio
In IP infringement matters, injunction should ordinarily follow.
Delay is not fatal where infringement is evident.
10. Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Ltd.
Citation: AIR 1989 SC 1238
Facts
Dispute over publication rights in Maulana Azad’s writings.
Decision
Court examined ownership and publication rights.
Ratio
Copyright ownership can arise through assignment and testamentary succession.
Moral and proprietary rights distinguished.
11. Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma
Citation: 1996 PTC 329
Facts
Parody play allegedly copied the original drama.
Decision
Parody treated as fair dealing.
Ratio
Criticism and review exceptions are important.
Freedom of expression balanced with copyright.
12. Syndicate of the Press of the University of Cambridge v. B.D. Bhandari
Facts
Unauthorized reproduction of academic materials.
Decision
Protection granted to publishers.
Ratio
Educational works enjoy full copyright protection.
Commercial photocopying may constitute infringement.
13. Manu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: AIR 1987 SC 1443
Facts
Author objected to distortion of her novel in film adaptation.
Decision
Court protected the author’s moral rights.
Ratio
Authors possess special moral rights under Section 57.
Distortion prejudicial to an author’s reputation is actionable.
14. Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India
Citation: 2005 (30) PTC 253
Facts
A mural created by the artist was removed and damaged.
Decision
Artist’s moral rights upheld.
Ratio
Moral rights survive independently of ownership.
Artistic integrity is protected under Section 57.
15. Star India Pvt. Ltd. v. Piyush Agarwal
Facts
Unauthorized online dissemination of cricket broadcasts.
Decision
Court recognized broadcaster rights.
Ratio
Broadcast reproduction rights are enforceable.
Digital piracy constitutes infringement.
16. Krishika Lulla v. Shyam Vithalrao Devkatta
Citation: (2016) 2 SCC 521
Facts
Dispute over the title “Desi Boys”.
Decision
Court held that film titles are generally not copyrightable.
Ratio
Short titles lack sufficient originality.
Trademark law may provide a better remedy.
17. Engineering Analysis Centre of Excellence Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: (2021) 3 SCC 742
Facts
Issue concerned software licensing and royalty payments.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that resale or use of software copies does not necessarily transfer copyright.
Ratio
Distinction between a copyrighted article and copyright itself.
Important for software copyright jurisprudence.
18. Knit Pro International v. State of NCT of Delhi
Citation: (2022) 10 SCC 221
Facts
Issue whether copyright offences are cognizable.
Decision
The Supreme Court held offences under Section 63 are cognizable and non-bailable.
Ratio
Police can investigate without a Magistrate’s order.
Strengthened criminal enforcement of copyright law.
19. M/s. Entertainment Network India Ltd. v. Phonographic Performance Ltd.
Facts
Concerned public performance rights and royalties.
Decision
Court emphasized fair royalty determination.
Ratio
Copyright societies must function reasonably.
Licensing cannot be arbitrary.
20. Govindan v. Gopalakrishna
Facts
Issue regarding originality in compilations and literary works.
Decision
Protection recognized where sufficient intellectual effort was shown.
Ratio
Originality requires independent skill and judgment.
Compilations may qualify for copyright protection.
Important Legal Principles Emerging from Supreme Court Copyright Jurisprudence
| Principle | Leading Case |
|---|---|
| Idea-expression dichotomy | R.G. Anand |
| Modicum of creativity | Eastern Book Company |
| Rights of authors and moral rights | Manu Bhandari; Amar Nath Sehgal |
| Producer as first owner in films | IPRS Case |
| Compulsory/statutory licensing | Entertainment Network |
| Anti-piracy criminal enforcement | Knit Pro International |
| Software copyright distinction | Engineering Analysis Case |
| Fair dealing and parody | Civic Chandran |
| Protection of sound recordings | Gramophone Company Case |
Conclusion
These judgments collectively form the backbone of Indian copyright jurisprudence under the Copyright Act, 1957. They continue to guide courts, lawyers, authors, artists, software developers, broadcasters, publishers, and businesses in understanding the scope, ownership, enforcement, licensing, and protection of copyright in India.
