ORDER :

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of declaration (a) declaring Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules 2013 non est, void, unconstitutional and ultra-vires; (b) strike down the Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 as unconstitutional being contrary to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India; (c) in the alternative to prayer (a) above, that on a true and correct interpretation of Rule 29(4), this Court be please to interpret Rule 29(4) as directory and not mandatory such that its requirements would be satisfied and treated as sufficient compliance upon submission of the logs containing details by radio broadcasters such as the petitioner at the end of the month.

1. The writ petition has been filed to challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 [for brevity “the Rules of 2013”]. It is not only in reference to Article 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution of India, but by alleging it to be in conflict with Section 31-D of the Copyright Act, 1957 [for brevity “the Act of 1957”].

2. Narrating the facts of the case, Mr. Arvind Pandian, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, stated that the first petitioner (Next Radio Limited) is holder of FM licenses granted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. It is operating commercial radio network since 2007 under the brand name of “Radio One.” The second petitioner is the Association of Radio Operators for India and is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The association was formed to promote the interest of its members and to take steps to protect their rights. Since the petitioners are either by themselves or in association engaged in the business of broadcasting the music, they make compliances of the Act of 1957 and the Rules of 2013. The second respondent is a leading music company operating in India for more than 100 years and the third respondent claims to be a performance rights organisation licensing its members sound recordings for communication to public in the areas of public performance and broadcast.

3. Learned counsel giving the background of the case submitted that an amendment in the Act of 1957 was brought by the Copyright (Amendment) Act of 2012 to introduce Section 31-D of the Act of 1957. It was to provide new rights in the form of a statutory licence for broadcasting of works. It was brought to limit the monopolistic effect and to balance the economic rights of the copyright owners and the rights of users. The main aim of the amendment was to benefit and protect consumers' interest. Section 31-D of the Act of 1957 was found to be in consonance with India's international obligations under Berne Convention, Rome Convention and Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

4. Section 31-D of the Act of 1957, accordingly, recognised the vesting of statutory rights in all broadcasting organisations, to broadcast works that have been published. The only aspect that is to be ascertained/determined prior to exercise of such right is the quantum of license fee. For this purpose, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) was vested with the jurisdiction to hear the interested parties and decide upon the quantum/rate of a statutory licence fee. The jurisdiction for it has now been vested with the Commercial Courts by the notification of the Tribunal Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021.

5. It is submitted that as per Section 31-D of the Act of 1957, a broadcasting organisation needs to give a 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 the rights in such work royalties in the manner and at the rate fixed by the Commercial Courts. By virtue of the aforesaid provision, the broadcasting company can see