Copyright in reported judgments is limited to original editorial material, not the public-domain text itself.

Copyright in reported Supreme Court judgments was confined to original editorial expression and did not extend to the underlying judgment text, which remains available as a government work and cannot be monopolised through ordinary copy-editing. The Court held that corrections, citations, formatting and other mechanical revisions in the SCC version lacked the minimal creativity needed for protection, but recognised copyright in genuinely original editorial material, including headnotes, footnotes, editorial notes, paragraph numbering, internal references and the presentation of concurring or dissenting opinions, because these involved independent skill, judgment and selection. Protection was therefore denied for the reported text itself but granted for the original editorial features.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether copyright subsisted in the copy-edited version of the Supreme Court judgments as published in SCC, and if so to what extent; (ii) Whether the appellants had copyright in the editorial inputs such as paragraph numbering, internal references, headnotes, footnotes, editorial notes and the presentation of judges' concurring or dissenting opinions.

Issue (i): Whether copyright subsisted in the copy-edited version of the Supreme Court judgments as published in SCC, and if so to what extent.

Analysis: Copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957 depends on originality in the protected expression. The text of judicial decisions is a government work and its reproduction or publication is permitted by the statutory exception for judgments and orders, so no monopoly can be claimed in the raw text of judgments merely because editorial labour has been expended on it. For a derivative compilation to attract protection, the work must be independently created and must reflect at least a minimal degree of creativity in selection, coordination or arrangement, beyond trivial or mechanical effort. The Court held that the SCC copy-edited judgments, insofar as they consisted only of corrections, citations, formatting and similar ordinary editorial inputs, did not meet that standard.

Conclusion: The appellants had no copyright in the copy-edited text of the Supreme Court judgments as such.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellants had copyright in the editorial inputs such as paragraph numbering, internal references, headnotes, footnotes, editorial notes and the presentation of judges' concurring or dissenting opinions.

Analysis: The headnotes, footnotes and editorial notes were treated as original editorial creations because they involved skill, labour and independent selection. The same approach was adopted for paragraph numbering, internal paragraph references and the editorial indication of concurring, partly concurring, dissenting or similar judicial opinions, because these required discernment, understanding of the structure of the judgment and legal judgment in presentation. These elements were held to cross the threshold of minimal creativity and therefore to be protectable expressions distinct from the underlying judgments themselves.

Conclusion: The appellants had copyright in the headnotes, footnotes, editorial notes, paragraph numbering, internal references and similar editorial presentation features.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part. Protection was denied for the reported judgment text itself, but granted for the original editorial material and presentation features developed by the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi: Copyright in a derivative or compiled work arises only where the editorial contribution reflects independent skill and judgment with a minimal degree of creativity in the protected expression, and it does not extend to the underlying public-domain judgment text or to purely mechanical editorial alterations.

---