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

1984 Supreme(Bom) 298

Bombay High Court
M.S.JAMDAR
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt.Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Jagmohan Mundhara - Respondent
Decided On : 10/12/1984

Advocates:
T.P. Andhyarujina with G.E. Vahanvati i/b. Mulla and Mulla Company, for Plaintiffs; Rajiv S. Mohite (for Nos.1 and 2), for Defendants.

There is no copyright in an event.

Headnote:

DEFAMATION - INJUNCTION - COPYRIGHT - COPYRIGHT IN AN EVENT - COPYRIGHT IN A NEWSPAPER ARTICLE - COPYRIGHT IN A PLAY - COPYRIGHT IN A FILM - DEFAMATION OF A COMPANY - DEFAMATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL - INTERIM INJUNCTION IN A LIBEL ACTION - LACHES AND DELAY.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs, a newspaper company and its journalist, filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages against the defendants, a film producer and a playwright, for infringement of copyright and defamation. The defendants produced a film titled 'Kamla', based on a play written by the second defendant, which depicted the purchase of a woman by a journalist to expose the flesh trade. The plaintiffs claimed that the film infringed their copyright in the articles published by the journalist and that it defamed them by portraying them in a negative light.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that there was no copyright in an event, and that the ideas, information, natural phenomena and events on which an author expends his skill, labour, capital, judgment and literary talent are common property and are not the subject of copyright. The court also held that the film was defamatory of the plaintiffs, as it depicted them in a negative light and lowered them in the estimation of the public. The court further held that the plaintiffs were not guilty of laches and delay, as they had taken action as soon as they became aware of the film.

Issues: 1. Whether there was copyright in an event? 2. Whether the film infringed the plaintiffs' copyright in the articles published by the journalist? 3. Whether the film defamed the plaintiffs? 4. Whether the plaintiffs were guilty of laches and delay?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. There is no copyright in an event. 2. The film did not infringe the plaintiffs' copyright in the articles published by the journalist, as the form, manner or arrangement of a drama and movie are materially different from a newspaper article and by very nature of the media there is fundamental and substantial dissimilarity in the mode of expression of the idea in a newspaper article and in a stage play or in a movie. 3. The film was defamatory of the plaintiffs, as it depicted them in a negative light and lowered them in the estimation of the public. 4. The plaintiffs were not guilty of laches and delay, as they had taken action as soon as they became aware of the film.

Final Decision: The court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from releasing the film unless and until certain scenes were deleted from the script and the film.

JUDGMENT :- This Notice of Motion is taken out by the plaintiffs against the defendants for restraining by an order and injunction of this Court from in any manner distributing, circulating or releasing or offering the movie 'Kamla' produced by the first defendant in any manner for public or private exhibition at any theatre, cinema, movie hall, etc. In India and for ordering the defendants to deliver up all the prints and copies, scripts, trailers, documents and all other materials, articles and things pertaining to the said film Kamla for destruction and also for appointment of the Court Receiver or some other fit and proper person as receiver of the script, prints, trailers, copies, stills, documents, publicity materials and all other materials, articles and things relating and pertaining to the movie Kamla.

2. The first plaintiff company publishes several newspapers, including the daily 'Indian Express'. The Indian Express is published from several cities in India, including Delhi and is claimed to have largest combined circulation amongst all the daily newspapers in the country. The second plaintiff is a journalist working for the first plaintiff company. He did some extensive research and investigation into the flesh trade that flourished in Madhya Pradesh (M.P.) and purchased a woman by name Kamla from village Shivpuri in M. P. for Rs. 2,300/-. He then wrote series of articles which were published by the first plaintiff in the issue of Indian Express Dt. 27th, 29th and 30th April, 1981 and 2nd May 1981. The article Dt. 25th was published in the issue of 27th April, 1981 under the heading 'Buying girls from circuit house' and was described as express special. It narrated in detail the efforts of the second plaintiff in approaching the right persons, resistance faced by him, the circumstances under which he decided to buy a woman so as to expose the flesh trade, the manner in which the deal was struck, as to how the woman Kamla was brought to New Delhi and as to how the second plaintiff escorted the woman to his residence at New Delhi. This article opened with these words : -

"Yesterday, I bought a short-statured skinny woman belonging to a village near Shivpuri in Madhya Pradesh for Rs. 2,300/-. Even I find it hard to believe that I have returned to the Capital this morning buying this middle aged woman for half the price one pays for a buffalo in Punjab."

The publication of the said article created sensation all over the country. In M.P. the official spokesman for the Government addressed a press conference, the police swung into action to check trafficking in women in the Dholpur area and a furore was created amongst various organisations, including women's organisations. The second news report appeared in the issue of Indian Express Dt. 29-4-1981 under the head line 'M.P. Government orders probe'. As per the report the M.P. Government ordered inquiry into the flesh trafficking racket in the northern parts of the State exposed by the Indian Express correspondent Ashwini Sarin. The Government also directed the police to register offence under the relevant provisions of law for the purchase of a woman for Rs. 2,300/-from the flesh market of M.P. and asked the Commissioner of Chambal division to make an inquiry for finding out the full facts of the story published in the Indian Express. The official spokesman of the Government, however, clarified that it was not the intention of the Government to arrest the reporter or harass him in any way. It was also mentioned in the said news report that when asked to comment on the move of the M.P. Government, the Executive Director of the Indian Express, Incharge of the Investigation, stated that the Government of M.P. had reacted in the most predictable manner and that a petition was already filed in the Supreme Court praying the Court to initiate remedial measures of several kinds. It was also mentioned that it was anticipated that the government concerned will attempt to cover up th
















































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top