2024 (8) TMI 1479 - HC - Indian Laws

Government circular expanding Copyright Act Section 52(1)(za) beyond statutory limits quashed for exceeding jurisdiction

Phonographic Performance Limited, Sonotek Cassettes Company Versus State of Goa, The Office of the DGP, Department of Tourism, Department of Art and Culture, Novex Communications Private Limited

The Bombay HC quashed a state government circular dated 30.01.2024 that expanded the scope of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act beyond its statutory ... Infringement of copyright - Interpretation and application of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act - Jurisdiction of the State Government to issue Circular dated 30.01.2024 - HELD THAT:- A careful perusal of the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act indicates that for infringement of the copyright or for violation of the rights under the Copyright Act, there are remedies provided apart from the safeguards prescribed for the protection of the rights of the copyright owners. The Act provides for civil remedies and makes the violations offence punishable under the Act. The consequences of breach are provided. The object of the Act is to protect the author of the copyright work from an unlawful reproduction or exploitation of his work by others. The whole essence of a copyright is a right to stop others from exploiting the work without the consent or assent of the owner of the copyright - the copyright law presents a balance between the interests and rights of the author and that of the public in protecting the public domain, or to claim the copyright and protect it under the copyright statute. It is important to bear in mind that the issue of copyright is closely connected to that of commercial viability, commercial consequences and implications. The impugned Circular dated 30.01.2024 relies upon a public notice dated 24.07.2023 issued by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The public notice dated 24.07.2023 after referring to Section 52(1)(za) directs the Copyright Society to refrain from entering into acts which are in contravention to Section 52(1)(za) in order to avoid any legal action. Also, the general public is thereby cautioned not to accede to any uncalled demands from any individual/organization/copyright society which are in violation of Section 52(1)(za) of Copyright Act 1957. The impugned Circular after referring to the Public Notice of Government of India dated 24.07.2023 says that insisting upon such permission/NOCs from the copyright societies is in violation of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act adversely affecting not only the citizens but also the economic/tourism activities in the State. It goes to clarify that no hotel or any copyright society shall insist upon any permission/NOCs for performance of musical works or other musical recordings for religious ceremonies/festivals including wedding/marriage events and other social festivities associated with marriage - The circular in expanding the scope of Section 52(1)(za) is bound to have consequences disturbing the balance which the Copyright Act seeks to achieve between the interest of the rights of the author/owner of the copyright and those claiming protection of Section 52(1)(za). As to what shall not constitute infringement of copyright is provided by Section 52(1)(za). It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate that the Circular to the extent the same is in consonance with the provisions of Section 52(1)(za) be saved. The Circular will have to be read as a whole considering the overall tenor. The Circular warrants interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There are no hesitation in holding that the impugned Circular is in the teeth of the provisions of the Copyright Act and therefore, the petitions must succeed. The impugned Circular dated 30.01.2024 issued by respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside - petition allowed. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the State Government to issue the Circular.2. Interpretation and application of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act.3. Impact of the Circular on the petitioner's rights and remedies under the Copyright Act.4. Legality of the Circular in light of the Copyright Act and its provisions.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the State Government to Issue the Circular:The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the State Government, specifically the Home Ministry of Goa, in issuing the impugned Circular. It was argued that the executive arm of the Government cannot assume legislative functions and interpret the law, as the Circular purported to do. The petitioner contended that the Circular expanded the scope of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, which was beyond the permissible legal boundaries. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the Circular was issued under the executive powers of the State Government as per Article 162 of the Constitution of India, aimed at guiding officers to prevent misuse of police machinery and to inform the public about statutory provisions.2. Interpretation and Application of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act:The core issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, which provides exceptions to what constitutes an infringement of copyright. The petitioner argued that the Circular misinterpreted this section by suggesting that all social festivities associated with marriage, including those with commercial elements, were exempt from copyright infringement. The petitioner emphasized that the exceptions should be limited to bona fide religious ceremonies with non-commercial use. The respondents maintained that the Circular was consistent with the statutory language, which does not restrict the exception to non-commercial use. The Court noted that Section 52(1)(za) does pose interpretative challenges, particularly regarding what constitutes a 'bona fide religious ceremony' and 'other social festivities associated with marriage.'3. Impact of the Circular on the Petitioner's Rights and Remedies under the Copyright Act:The petitioner argued that the Circular impinged on its right to initiate civil and criminal proceedings for copyright infringement. By instructing police to act against the collection of royalties, the Circular allegedly hampered the petitioner's statutory rights. The respondents countered that the Circular did not take away any statutory rights but aimed to prevent abuse and ensure that actions were in accordance with the law. The Court found that the Circular, by expanding the scope of Section 52(1)(za), disturbed the balance the Copyright Act seeks to achieve between the rights of copyright owners and the public.4. Legality of the Circular in Light of the Copyright Act and Its Provisions:The Court held that the Circular was beyond the scope of Section 52(1)(za) and interfered with the enforcement mechanism provided under the Copyright Act. The Circular's language suggested an interpretative exercise that added words not present in the statutory provision, such as equating 'marriage' with 'wedding' and expanding the exception to include events not contemplated by the Act. The Court emphasized that the question of what constitutes an infringement of copyright is best left to adjudication by competent forums as per the Act's mechanism. The Circular was found to be illegal and bad in law, as it overreached the provisions of the Copyright Act and interfered with the rights of copyright societies.Conclusion:The Court quashed and set aside the impugned Circular dated 30.01.2024, holding it to be in violation of the provisions of the Copyright Act. The petitions succeeded, and no costs were awarded. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and the need for competent forums to resolve disputes regarding copyright infringement.