Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJAN
M/s. Videowala
Versus
Union of India and Others
W.M.P. Nos. 15682 and 16394 of 1984 In W.P. No. 9745 of 1984
Decided On :Decided on : 08-01-1986
IMPLEADMENT - COPYRIGHT ACT - SECTION 52A - FILM FEDERATION OF INDIA - IMPLEADMENT AS RESPONDENT IN WRIT PETITION - NO LOCUS STANDI - STATUS OF PROPER PERSON TO BE HEARD GRANTED.
Fact of the Case:
The Film Federation of India (FFI) filed a petition to implead itself as a respondent in a writ petition challenging the validity of certain provisions of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1984. The FFI argued that it had locus standi to defend the legislation as it was passed to safeguard the interests of film producers, distributors, and exhibitors, of which the FFI was a representative body.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the FFI did not have locus standi to be impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition. The court reasoned that the challenge to the validity of the legislation was based on constitutional grounds, and it was only the concerned Government that was entitled to defend a legislation attacked on the ground of unconstitutionality. 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.
Issues: 1. Whether the FFI had locus standi to be impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition challenging the validity of certain provisions of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1984. 2. Whether the FFI could be granted the status of a proper person to be heard in the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the FFI did not have locus standi to be impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition because: * The challenge to the validity of the legislation was based on constitutional grounds, and it was only the concerned Government that was entitled to defend a legislation attacked on the ground of unconstitutionality. * 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.
Final Decision: The court ordered that the FFI would be accorded the status of a proper person to be heard in the writ petition, but without a right to get itself impleaded as a party-respondent. The court also dismissed the FFI's petition to revoke the interim stay granted in the writ petition.
Both these petitions have been filed by the Film Federation of India, represented by its President, D. Ramanujam. In the former petition the prayer is for vacating the interim stay granted in W.M.P. 15682 of 1984 and in the latter petition the prayer is for the impleadment of the petitioner as a respondent.
2. The impleadment of the petitioner as a party-respondent in the writ petition is opposed by Messrs Videowala, who have filed W.P. 9745 of 1984 and obtained orders of interim stay. The said writ petition has been filed under Art.22b of the Constitution to seek the issue of a writ of declaration to declare certain provisions of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred) to as the amendment Act) insofar as they relate to the petitioner - Video Library, as void and unconstitutional.
3. Having regard to the limited question for consideration in the W.M.P. 16395 of 1984, it is not necessary to set out the provisions of the amendment Act, which are challenged, and the grounds on which the validity of the provisions are questioned. The Film Federation of India seeks impleadment in the writ petition on the ground that the Act has been passed to safeguard the interests of the producers, distributors and exhibitors of films as well as the public exchequer, that as such, the film producers, distributors and exhibitors are as much interested as the Government in the validity of the Amendment Act being upheld, that since the Federation has been formed to safeguard the interests of the film producers, distributors and exhibitors it has locus standi to get itself impleaded in the proceedings and put forth the case of its members and that its right to get impleaded in such matters has already been recognised by this Court in an earlier writ petition. W.P. 753 of 1984. (See 1984 AIR(Mad) 278).
4. The third respondent herein, viz., the petitioner in the writ petition, opposes the claim of the petitioner herein (Film Federation) and has filed a counter-affidavit traversing the several averments contained in the affidavit filed by the Federation.
5. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the Federation, contended that the impugned legislation has been enacted to safeguard the interests of the film producers, distributors and exhibitors, that on an earlier occasion, the State Government had passed the Tamil Nadu Exhibition of Films on Television Screen through Video-Cassetts Recorders (Regulation) Act, 1984, that the said Act was. challenged by some of the persons having Video Libraries, that this Court upheld the validity of the said Act except in so far as Ss.9(2) and 10(2) of that Act are concerned, that thereupon the Federation has taken up the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court and has obtained orders, of that the present legislation has been passed by Parliament to obviate any State amendment of a Central Act, to wit, the Copyright Act, being challenged on the ground of legislative incompetence and therefore, for an effective adjudication being made in the writ petition, the Federation should be impleaded as a respondent in the writ petition. Mr. Chidambaram further stated that the Constitution ensures every citizen a right of access to Court and as such, the Federation has an indisputable right to seek. impleadment in the proceedings, especially when the Act challenged is of vital concern to the members of the Federation. In support of his contentions, Mr. P. Chidambaram places reliance on State of Madras v. V.G. Row, 1952 AIR(SC) 196, 1952 (58) CRLJ 1966, 1952 SCJ 253, 1952 (1) SCR 597, 1952 (2) MLJ 135 Pathumma v. State of Kerala, 1978 AIR(SC) 771, 1978 (2) SCC 1, 1978 (2) SCR 537: 1978 AIR(SC) 771, 1978 (2) SCC 1, 1978 (2) SCR 537; Fertilizer Corporation v. Union of India, 1981 AIR(SC) 344, 1981 (42) FLR 192, 1981 (59) FJR 237, 1980 LIC 1367, 1981 (1) LLJ 193, 1981 (1) LLN 288, 1981 (1) SCC 568, 1981 (2) SCR 52, 1981 (3) Scale 1137: 1981 AIR(SC) 344, 1981 (42) FLR 192, 1981 (59) FJR 237, 1980 LIC 1367, 1
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
