Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, could at the interlocutory stage re-fashion Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 by converting the statutory prior-notice regime into a post facto compliance regime and extending the time for furnishing broadcast particulars.
Analysis: Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957 requires prior notice in the manner prescribed, stating the duration and territorial coverage of the broadcast, together with payment of royalties at the rate fixed by the competent authority. Rule 29(4) prescribes the particulars to be contained in the notice. The impugned interim order did not merely interpret these provisions; it substituted the statutory and delegated text with a modified regime of its own by treating the exception in the second proviso as a routine procedure and enlarging post facto reporting to fifteen days. Judicial review permits examination of validity, but it does not authorise the Court to rewrite legislation or delegated legislation, particularly at an interim stage.
Conclusion: The interim order rewriting Rule 29(4) was impermissible and could not be sustained; the appeals were allowed and the interim order was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: A court exercising judicial review cannot, especially in interlocutory proceedings, rewrite a clear statutory or delegated provision by substituting a new regulatory regime for the one enacted by the legislature or rule-making authority.