Back
Issues Contempt Notice to JioStar Over Zee's Alleged Copyright Violations
The has taken a firm stance in the escalating copyright battle between and , issuing notice on a filed by Zee. The application alleges that JioStar continues to use Zee's copyrighted music despite a clear passed on . Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, presiding over the matter, cautioned JioStar against any further while directing Zee to provide a specific list of allegedly infringing works for verification and takedown. The case highlights the tension between a copyright owner's right to exclusivity and a 's operational challenges in policing vast content libraries.
Background of the Dispute
The roots of this dispute lie in signed between Zee and JioStar in 2017 and 2020, which granted JioStar rights to use Zee's extensive catalogue of across its television serials and OTT content. These agreements expired on . Once the licences lapsed, Zee argued that JioStar was bound to cease all use of its music. However, Zee claimed that even after repeatedly flagging the issue, its songs continued to appear in JioStar's shows.
On , Justice Tejas Karia passed an restraining JioStar from using, broadcasting, or streaming any of Zee's . Crucially, the court rejected JioStar's suggestion that its obligation to stop should only arise once Zee specifically identified and notified each infringing instance. The parties were also referred to mediation at that hearing, but the efforts failed to resolve the matter.
The
Zee moved the after alleging that JioStar continued to broadcast and stream its copyrighted music even after the injunction. At the hearing before Justice Bhambhani on Friday, Zee's counsel, , argued that the injunction was being openly violated. He placed before the court what he described as the "sum total" of infringements from May and June — six works, each roughly 30 seconds long. According to Zee, these instances demonstrated a deliberate disregard for the court's order.
JioStar's counsel, , countered that with a catalogue running into lakhs of works, some instances would inevitably slip through despite good-faith efforts to purge everything. He reiterated JioStar's request that Zee share metadata or "meta tags" for its works so that JioStar could systematically clear them. This argument essentially sought a similar to that available to passive intermediaries under the .
Court's Observations and Directions
Justice Bhambhani noted that JioStar's request to treat itself like an intermediary had already been rejected in the May order. As Zee's counsel pointed out, JioStar exercises full control over what it broadcasts — unlike a — and thus cannot claim the same . The court, however, adopted a pragmatic approach to ensure compliance. It asked Zee to specify exactly which recordings it says are currently being infringed, so that JioStar could verify and act on the list. JioStar's counsel indicated immediate compliance once specifics were provided.
The court then issued notice on the , but in the meantime, it issued a clear caution: “But I will say that in the meantime, defendant is directed to, is cautioned against any with order.” JioStar was permitted to file a reply along with a explaining its position that no contempt is made out. The matter has been listed for further hearing on , with a direction to appear before the Joint Registrar on .
Legal Implications
This case raises several important issues for copyright law and contempt proceedings. First, it reaffirms that a or cannot rely on the volume of its catalogue to justify continued infringement after a court order. The rejection of the notice-and-takedown analogy underscores that active content controllers bear a higher duty to comply with injunctions. Second, the court's direction to Zee to provide a specific list reflects a balancing act — while the original order placed the onus on JioStar to stop using all Zee works, the contempt stage demands concrete evidence of ongoing infringement to establish .
From a procedural perspective, the case illustrates how courts manage contempt applications involving large-scale intellectual property portfolios. The requirement for a and also signals that the court will scrutinise JioStar's efforts to purge the infringing content. If contempt is ultimately found, JioStar could face penalties ranging from fines to attachment of assets or even imprisonment of its officers.
Impact on Legal Practice
For legal professionals advising media and entertainment companies, this case serves as a cautionary tale. When expire, both licensors and licensees must have robust mechanisms to ensure cessation of use. Zee's strategy of first seeking an injunction and then pursuing contempt is a powerful enforcement tool. Conversely, JioStar's predicament highlights the operational risks of relying on a vast content library without adequate metadata tagging or automated compliance systems.
The case also reinforces that courts will not tolerate a 'wait-and-see' approach by defendants who hope to negotiate while continuing infringing acts. The is designed to uphold the dignity of court orders, and the 's active monitoring here signals that it will not hesitate to act against .
What Lies Ahead
The next hearing on will be critical. JioStar must file its reply and affidavit, explaining its efforts and arguing why contempt is not made out. Zee will have the opportunity to rebut that evidence. The Joint Registrar's hearing on may involve case management or further directions. Meanwhile, the music industry will watch closely: a finding of contempt could set a precedent for how copyright injunctions are enforced against large-scale content platforms. For now, JioStar has been put on notice — both formally and judicially — that any further breach will have consequences.
