Copyright exception limits cannot be expanded by circular; marriage-related performances need case-specific adjudication under the Act.

An executive circular cannot enlarge the statutory copyright exception under Section 52(1)(za) by treating wedding-related performances as automatically exempt. The Court noted that the exception applies only where the performance or communication occurs in the course of a bona fide religious or official ceremony, with the statutory explanation extending limited coverage to a marriage procession and associated social festivities. Because the Copyright Act, 1957 creates its own civil, criminal and enforcement machinery, whether a particular event falls within the exception must be decided case by case by the competent forum. The circular was held inconsistent with the Act, beyond the scope of Section 52(1)(za), and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned circular, by treating performances at marriage-related events as falling within the statutory exception, exceeded Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and unlawfully curtailed the copyright owner's enforcement remedies.

Analysis: Section 52(1)(za) is an exception to infringement and its application depends on whether the performance or communication to the public occurs in the course of a bona fide religious ceremony or an official ceremony, with the explanation extending the clause to a marriage procession and other social festivities associated with marriage. The impugned circular did not merely inform the public of the statutory text; it expanded the scope of the exception by adding expressions such as wedding events and by directing that no permission or NOC be insisted upon, together with directions for strict action against claims for royalties. The Copyright Act, 1957 provides a complete framework for civil remedies, criminal remedies, seizure powers, and challenge to groundless threats, and the question whether a particular event falls within the exception must be determined on the facts of each case by the competent forum. A general executive clarification could not pre-empt that adjudicatory exercise or disturb the statutory balance between copyright owners and the public.

Conclusion: The circular was held to be beyond Section 52(1)(za), inconsistent with the Copyright Act, 1957, and liable to be quashed; the petitions succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: An executive circular cannot enlarge a statutory copyright exception or pre-determine, for all cases, whether a particular event falls within that exception when the governing Act requires case-specific adjudication and provides its own enforcement and remedial machinery.

---