SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(SC) 1602

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Agrawal, P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
Eastern Book Company & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
D.B. Modak & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6472 of 2004 With Civil Appeal No. 6905 of 2004 and Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 158 of 2006 in Civil Appeal No. 6472 of 2004
Decided On : 12-12-2007

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties :- Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate, Sudeep Mallik, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Saurab Sinha, Rishab Ahmad Chowdhury, Raj Shekhar Rao, M.R. Vij, Nitin Ramesh, Samar Bansal, S.K. Mohanty, Lokesh Kumar, M.K. Garg, Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Bishwajit Dubey, Ms. Shruti Kakkar, Sumeet Bhatia and Maninder Singh, Advocates.

Originality in copyright law requires creative input beyond mere mechanical editing; Supreme Court judgments are in public domain, allowing reproduction without infringement.

Headnote:(A) Copyright Act, 1957 - Sections 2(k), 13, 14(1)(a), 17, 52(1)(q)(iv) - Appeals regarding copyright claimed in law reports published by a registered law firm - Claim for copyright in copy-edited judgments of the Supreme Court rejected - Court held original judgments are public domain and can be reproduced without infringement, while some editorial inputs in the form of headnotes possess originality. (Paras 12, 29, 41, 42)

(B) Copyright - Standards of originality - The exercise of mere mechanical skill in copy-editing without significant creative input does not qualify for copyright protection. (Paras 10, 14, 38, 41)

Facts of the case:
Appellants claim copyright in their law report 'SCC' which includes published judgments of the Supreme Court, asserting that the copy-editing inputs contribute to originality, thus deserving copyright protection. However, the judgments themselves fall under public domain thus devoid of copyright claim. (Paras 2, 4, 6)

Findings of Court:
Court established that while the input in editorial processes can have copyright, the raw text of the judgments does not and their mere reporting by the appellants is permissible under Section 52. (Paras 38-42)

Issues: The central issues raised included whether the appellants’ copy of Supreme Court judgments, including editorial modifications and inputs, can claim originality under copyright law and whether the ongoing copyright claim violates principles of public access to legal judgments. (Paras 10, 11, 42)

Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that there is no copyright in the Supreme Court’s judgments due to their public domain status, thus reaffirming that copyright can only pertain to the originality involved in the editorial changes and structuring made by the appellants, which must demonstrate significant creativity. (Paras 12, 38, 41)

Result: Appeals partly allowed; copyright upheld in headnotes and editorial portions but not in subsequent reproductions of the original judgments.

Judgement Key Points

The court examined whether the copyright subsists in the copy-edited version of judgments and law reports, particularly in the context of works that are in the public domain, such as judgments of courts. It was found that judgments delivered by courts, including the Supreme Court, are in the public domain and their reproduction or publication does not constitute infringement of copyright, provided that such reproduction is not prohibited by the court itself (!) (!) .

The court emphasized that for a work to qualify for copyright protection, it must involve a minimum level of originality and creativity, beyond mere labour or capital expenditure. The standard for originality requires that the work must originate from the author and not be a mere copy, with some exercise of skill and judgment involved in its creation (!) (!) (!) .

In the specific context of law reports and judgments, the court held that the inputs added by the publishers—such as cross-references, citation corrections, paragraph numbering, headings, and stylistic modifications—must demonstrate a certain degree of creativity and independent effort to qualify for copyright protection. Routine or trivial modifications, or those merely reproducing facts or well-known information, do not suffice (!) (!) .

It was further clarified that modifications requiring discernment, judgment, and understanding of legal discourse—such as paragraph segmentation, internal referencing, and indicating dissenting or concurring opinions—are considered to involve a minimal but sufficient level of creativity and thus can attract copyright (!) (!) .

Overall, the court concluded that the work of editing, organizing, and presenting judgments with added inputs that involve a modicum of skill, judgment, and effort can be protected by copyright. However, mere copying of the raw judgments or reproducing facts and well-known information without substantial creative input does not qualify for copyright protection. The court modified the earlier injunctions to prohibit copying of specific elements that involve such minimal creativity, while affirming that judgments themselves, being in the public domain, cannot be exclusively copyrighted (!) (!) .

In summary, the court recognized that copyright protection extends to those works where the added inputs involve a minimal but meaningful exercise of skill and judgment, and that judgments of courts in the public domain are not subject to copyright, but the editorial work that involves creative effort can be protected.


Table of Content
1. introduction and factual background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. discussion on copyright infringement and appeal. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. analysis of copyright law principles and precedents. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. evaluation of the copyrightability of compilations and derivative works. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
5. establishing the parameters for copyright in derivative works. (Para 31 , 32 , 39 , 40 , 41)
6. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 42 , 43 , 44)

JUDGMENT

P.P. Naolekar, J.

These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi involving the analogous question and are, therefore, decided together by this judgment.

2. Appellant No. 1 - Eastern Book Company is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of publishing law books. Appellant No. 2 - EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated and existing under the Companies Act, 1956. The said appellants are involved in the printing and publishing of various books relating to the field of law. One of the well- known publications of appellant No. 1 - Eastern Book Company is the law report "Supreme Court Cases" (hereinafter called "SCC"). The appellant publishes all reportable judgments along with non-reportable judgments of the Supreme Court of India. Yet another category included in SCC is short judgments, orders, practice directions and record of proceedings. The law report SCC was commenced in the year 1969 and has been in continuous publication ever since. The name "Supreme Court Cases" has been coined by the appellants and they have been using the same continuously, exclusively and extensively in relation to the law reports published by them. For the purpose of publishing the judgments, orders and proceedings of the Supreme Court, the copies of judgments, orders and proceedings are procured from the office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of India. After the initial procurement of the judgments, orders and proceedings for publication, the appellants make copy- editing wherein the judgments, orders and record of proceedings procured, which is the raw source, are copy-edited by a team of assistant staff and various inputs are put in the judgments and orders to make them user friendly by making an addition of cross-references, standardisation or formatting of the text, paragraph numbering, verification and by putting other inputs. The appellants also prepare the headnotes comprising of two portions, the short note consisting of catch/lead words written in bold; and the long note, which is comprised of a brief discussion of the facts and the relevant extracts from the judgments and orders of the Court. Headnotes are prepared by appellant No. 3-Surendra Malik. As per the said appellant (plaintiff No. 3 in the suits filed in the Delhi High Court), the preparation of the headnotes and putting the various inputs in the raw text of the judgments and orders received from the Supreme Court Registry require considerable amount of skill, labour and expertise and for the said work a substantial amount of capital expenditure on the infrastructure, such as office, equipment, computers and for maintaining extensive library, besides recurring expenditure on both the management of human resources and infrastructural maintenance, is made by the plaintiff- appellants. As per the appellants, SCC is a law report which carries case reports comprising of the appellants' version or presentation of those judgments and orders of the Supreme Court after putting various inputs in the raw text and it constitutes an 'original literary work' of the appellants in which copyright subsists under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and thus the appellants alone have the exclusive right to make printed as well as electronic copies of the same under Section 14 of the Act. Any scanning or c


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top