Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Saregama India Limited – Appellant
Versus
Next Radio Limited and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5985-5987, 5988-5990 of 2021, SLP (Civil) Nos. 14972-14974, 15108-15110 of 2021
Decided On : 27-09-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226, 19(1)(a) – Copyright Rules 2013 – Rule 29(4) – Copyright Amendment Act 2012 – Section 18, 19, 30 – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs – Leave granted – Appeals arise from an interim order of a Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Madras in a batch of petitions – Writ petitions have been instituted before High Court under Article 226 of Constitution to challenge validity of Rule 29(4) of Copyright Rules 20131 [“Rules”] – High Court has, by its interim order, directed – Held, Court are, therefore, clearly of view that an exercise of judicial re-drafting of Rule 29(4) was unwarranted, particularly at interlocutory stage – Difficulties which have been expressed before High Court by the broadcasters have warranted an early listing of matter and this Court has been assured by copyright owners that they would file their counter affidavits immediately so as to facilitate expeditious disposal of proceedings –That having been assured, Court view that an exercise of judicial re-writing of a statutory rule is unwarranted in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution, particularly in interlocutory proceedings – High Court was also of view that second proviso may be resorted to as a matter of routine, instead of as an exception and that ex post facto reporting should be enlarged to a period of fifteen days (instead of a period of twenty four hours). Such an exercise was impermissible since it would substitute a statutory rule made in exercise of power of delegated legislation with a new regime and provision which High Court considers more practicable – Court accordingly allow appeals by setting aside interim order of High Court – This is, however, subject to clarification that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of rival submissions which would fall for determination in exercise of writ jurisdiction of the High Court in pending proceedings – Applications disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from an interim order dated 2 August 2021 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a batch of petitions. The writ petitions have been instituted before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the validity of Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules 20131 [“Rules”]. The High Court has, by its interim order, directed that:
(ii) Details pertaining to the broadcast, particularly the duration, time slots and the like, including the quantum of royalty payable may be furnished within fifteen days of the broadcast or performance.
(iii) Compliance be effected with a modified regime of post facto, as opposed to prior compliance mandated by Rule 29(4) and the statutory mandate of a twenty four hour prior notice shall be substituted by a provision for compliance within fifteen days after the broadcast.
(iv) The interim order will be confined to the petitioners before the High Court and the copyrighted works of the second and third respondents which are sought to be exploited.
3. The primary submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellants is that the interim order of the High Court has the effect of re-writing Rule 29(4) of the Rules framed in pursuance of the provisions of Section 31D and Section 78(2)(D) of the Copyright Act 19572 [“Act”].
4. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel, have appeared on behalf of the appellants. Mr. Navroz Seervai and Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Counsel, have appeared on behalf of the contesting respondents, who are the original petitioners before the High Court.
5. Since the interim direction has been issued in the writ petitions moved before the High Court and the petitioners before the High Court are represented in these proceedings through counsel, on caveat, we are disposing of the appeals at this stage.
6. The batch of writ petitions before the High Court is listed for final disposal on 4 October 2021. A grievance has been made on behalf of the contesting respondents that the appellants have not filed counter affidavits in response to the petitions. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants assured the Court that they would do so expeditiously, well before the next date of listing so as to facilitate the final disposal of the writ petitions.
7. The facts, insofar as they are necessary for the disposal of the present appeals, which arise from the interim order of the High Court, can be briefly visited.
8. By the Copyright Amendment Act 2012, Parliament incorporated the provisions of Section 31D which were brought into force on 21 June 2012. Section 31D is in the following terms:
(1) Any broadcasting organisation desirous of communicating to the public by way of a broadcast or by way of performance of a literary or musical work and sound recording which has already been published may do so subject to the provisions of this section.
(2) The broadcasting organisation shall give prior notice, in such manner as may be prescribed, of its intention to broadcast the work stating the duration and territorial coverage of the broadcast and shall pay to the owner of rights in each work royalties in the manner and at the rate fixed by the Commercial Court.
(3) The rates of royalties for radio broadcasting shall be different from television broadcasting and the Commercial Court shall fix separate rates for radio broadcasting and television broadcasting.
(4) In fixing the manner and the rate of royalty under sub-section (2), the Commercial Court may require the broadcasting organisation to pay an advance to the owners of rights.
(5) The names of the authors of the principal performers of the work shall, except in case of the broadcasting organisation communicating such wor
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
