In a petition challenging the constitutional validity of a statute, the State or Union Government is the proper and necessary party to defend the validity of the statute, and private parties, even if they are beneficiaries of the statute, do not have the locus standi to be impleaded as party respondents.

M. N. CHANDURKAR (C J)

This is an appeal against the order of S. Natarajan J. by which the appellant's petition for being joined as a party respondent in W.P. 9745 of 1984 has been rejected by the learned Judge. The original petitioner, the 3rd respondent, has filed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1984. The petitioner carries on the business of running a video library where it hires out to its members video cassettes on a fixed hire to enable the hirers to view these cassettes in the privacy of their homes through a video cassette player attached to a television unit.

2. The respondents in the petition are the Union of India and the Commissioner of Police. It appears that the Commissioner of Police has been joined as a party because the offences provided for in the Copyright Act have been made non-bailable and punishable with harsh and disproportionate penalties without the owner of the copyright complaining about any infringement.

3. The learned Judge heard the petition and has granted a stay of the provisions of Ss.4(2), 5, 7 and 9 of the Amending Act.

4. The appellant filed two petitions before the learned Judge, one for being impleaded as a party respondent to the petition and the other for vacating the stay order. The appellant is a Company known as Film Federation of India and claims to be an apex federating body of several associations from different States, such as Producers' Councils, Distributors' Councils etc. The appellant claims to be directly and intimately connected with the film industry whose members earn their livelihood through the film industry. The appellant claims that the amendment which is an anti-piracy measure is enacted for the benefit of the cinema industry. The appellant has stated that it would be the most appropriate body to espouse the cause of the film industry since the film industry is interested in upholding the validity of the Act, and, therefore, the appellant is a necessary and proper party.

5. In a common affidavit filed, the appellant has asked for vacating of the stay order because the continuance of the stay order would cause grave prejudice to the film industry and would frustrate the objects for which the Parliament has enacted the Amending Act.

6. The prayer for being joined as a party and for vacating the stay order was strenuously opposed on behalf of the original petitioner. The learned Judge has rejected both the petitions holding that though the amendment has been made with a view to safeguard the revenues of the public exchequer as well as the interests of the producers, it is only the concerned Government which is entitled to defend a legislation made by the Union Parliament or State Legislature, when it is attacked on the ground of unconstitutionality. The learned Judge held that private parties, however, much interested they may be in the outcome of the proceedings, cannot seek parity of status or treatment with the Government in such matters. The learned Judge took the view that the appellant could at best be an intervener or an observer and render assistance to the Court when determining the question of validity. Taking any other view, according to the learned Judge, would mean that in every petition filed to challenge the validity of a Central or State Act, the beneficiaries under the Act would seek impleadment in the proceedings and take the litigation to a personal level between it or themselves, on the one hand, and the petitioners, on the other.

7. Though the petition for impleading was rejected, the learned Judge directed that the appellant could be heard in the proceedings, but without a right to get itself impleaded as a party-respondent and be given an opportunity to make its representations on the merits of the case. Having made the above observations, the learned Judge dismissed the petition for vacating the stay order on the ground that the appellant will not have any status to file such a petition.

8.