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:

(i) No copyrighted work may be broadcast in terms of Rule 29 without issuing a prior notice.

(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 prim