http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 58  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6472 of 2004

PETITIONER: Eastern Book Company & Ors.

RESPONDENT: D.B. Modak & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/12/2007

BENCH: B.N. AGRAWAL & P.P. NAOLEKAR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [with Civil Appeal No. 6905 of 2004 and Contempt Petition  (Civil) No. 158 of 2006 in Civil Appeal No. 6472 of 2004]

P.P. Naolekar, J.

1.              These appeals by special leave have been  preferred against the common judgment of a Division Bench  of the High Court of Delhi involving the analogous question  and are, therefore, decided together by this judgment. 2.              Appellant No. 1 \026 Eastern Book Company is a  registered partnership firm carrying on the business of  publishing law books.  Appellant No. 2 \026 EBC Publishing  Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated and existing under the  Companies Act, 1956.  The said appellants are involved in   the printing and publishing of various books relating to  the field of law. One of the well-known publications of   appellant No. 1 \026 Eastern Book Company  is the law report  \023Supreme Court Cases\024 (hereinafter called \023SCC\024).  The  appellant publishes all reportable judgments along with  non-reportable judgments of the Supreme Court of India.   Yet another category included in SCC is short judgments,  orders, practice directions and record of proceedings.  The  law report SCC was commenced in the year 1969 and has been  in continuous publication ever since.  The name \023Supreme  Court Cases\024 has been coined by the appellants and they  have been using the same continuously, exclusively and  extensively in relation to the law reports published by  them.  For the purpose of publishing the judgments, orders  and proceedings of the Supreme Court, the copies of  judgments, orders and proceedings are procured from the  office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of India.   After the initial procurement of the judgments, orders and  proceedings for publication, the appellants make copy- editing wherein the judgments, orders and record of  proceedings procured, which is the raw source, are copy- edited by a team of assistant staff and various inputs are  put in the judgments and orders to make them user friendly  by making an addition of cross-references, standardization  or formatting of the text, paragraph numbering,  verification and by putting other inputs.   The appellants  also prepare the headnotes comprising of two portions, the  short note consisting of catch/lead words written in bold;  and the long note, which is comprised of a brief discussion  of the facts and the relevant extracts from the judgments  and orders of the Court.  Headnotes are prepared by  appellant No. 3-Surendra Malik.  As per the said appellant  (plaintiff No. 3 in the suits filed in the Delhi High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 58  

Court), the preparation of the headnotes and  putting the  various inputs in the raw text of the judgments and orders  received from the Supreme Court Registry require  considerable amount of skill, labour and expertise and for  the said work a substantial amount of capital expenditure  on the infrastructure, such as office, equipment, computers  and for maintaining extensive library, besides recurring  expenditure on both the management of human resources and  infrastructural maintenance, is made by the plaintiff- appellants.   As per the appellants, SCC is a law report  which carries case reports comprising of the appellants\022  version or presentation of those judgments and orders of  the Supreme Court after putting various inputs in the raw  text and it constitutes an ‘original literary work\022 of the  appellants in which copyright subsists under Section 13 of  the Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as \023the  Act\024) and thus the appellants alone have the exclusive  right to make printed as well as electronic copies of the  same under Section 14 of the Act.  Any scanning or copying  or reproduction done of or from the reports or pages or  paragraphs or portions of any volume of SCC by any other  person, is an infringement of the copyright in SCC within  the meaning of Section 51 of the Act.    3.              The defendant-respondent No. 2 Spectrum Business  Support Ltd.  (in Civil Appeal No. 6472/2004) has brought  out a software called \023Grand Jurix\024 published on CD-ROMs  and the defendant-respondent No. 2 Regent Data Tech Pvt.  Ltd. (in Civil Appeal No. 6905/2004) has brought out  software package called \023The Laws\024 published on CD-ROMs.   As per the appellants, all the modules in the defendant- respondents\022 software packages have been lifted verbatim  from the appellants\022 work; the respondents have copied the  appellants\022 sequencing, selection and arrangement of the  cases coupled with the entire text of copy-edited judgments  as published in the plaintiff-appellants\022 law report SCC,  along with and including the style and formatting, the  copy-editing paragraph numbers, footnote numbers, cross- references, etc.; and such acts of the defendant- respondents constitute infringement of the plaintiff- appellants\022 exclusive right to the same.

4.              The plaintiff-appellants herein moved the Court  for temporary injunction by filing applications in Suit  No.758/2000 against Spectrum Business Support Ltd. and in  Suit No. 624/2000 against Regent Data Tech Pvt. Ltd. before  a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi.  The  interim orders of injunction were passed in the suits from  time to time.  However, the defendant-respondents filed  application for vacation of the stay order.  By a common  judgment dated 17.1.2001, the Single Judge of the High  Court dismissed the appellants\022 applications for interim  injunction and allowed the respondents\022 application for  vacation of stay.  However, before the Single Judge, the  respondents conceded that the appellants have copyright in  the headnotes and as such they undertook not to copy these  headnotes in their CD-ROMs. 5.              Aggrieved by the said order dated 17.1.2001  refusing to grant interim injunction, the appellants  preferred appeals before a Division Bench of the Delhi High  Court and the applications praying for interim relief were  also filed in both the appeals.  The applications praying  for the interim relief were disposed of by the Division  Bench on 9.3.2001 directing that during the pendency of the  appeals the respondents will be entitled to sell their CD- ROMs with the text of the judgment of the Supreme Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 58  

along with their own headnotes which should not in any way  be a copy of the headnotes and the text of the plaintiff- appellants. 6.              The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court heard  the matters finally and has held that the appellants are  not right in submitting that although the respondents have  a right to publish the raw judgments they could do so only  after obtaining the same from the original source, i.e.  after obtaining certified copy of the judgment.  The  Division Bench did not agree with the submission of the  appellants that by making certain corrections in the  judgments or putting paragraph numbers or arranging the  said judgments in a particular manner while printing, the  appellants can claim that the copy-edited judgments become  their \021original literary work\022.  If the right of a person  like the appellants who are merely reporting the judgments  of the courts is stretched to this extent, then after a  judgment is reported by a particular journal, others would  be barred from doing the same and the very purpose of  making these judgments in public domain, therefore, would  be frustrated.    The Court has further held that the  appellants are not the author of the Supreme Court  judgments and by merely making certain corrections therein  or giving paragraph numbers, the character of a judgment  does not change and it does not become materially different  from the original judgment.   Once a person has a right to  obtain certified copy of the judgment from the Registry of  the Court and to publish it, it cannot be said that he has  no right to take text of the judgment from the journal  where it is already reported.  The act of reproduction of  any judgment or order of the Court, Tribunal or any other  judicial authority under Section 52(1)(q) of the Act, is  not an infringement of the copyright.  Any person can,  therefore, publish judgments of the Courts.  The appellants  may have happened to have first published the judgments,  but the same will not mean that they can have a copyright  therein.  It is the considered opinion of the Division  Bench that no person can claim copyright in the text of the  judgment by merely putting certain inputs to make it user  friendly.  The appellants cannot claim copyright in the  judgment of the Court.  But it has been held by the Court  that reading the judgment and searching the important  portions thereof and collecting sentences from various  places for the purposes of making headnotes would involve  labour and skill; and that there is originality and  creativity in preparation of the headnotes, but not when  they are verbatim extracts from the judgment and,  therefore, there would be copyright in the headnotes to the  judgments prepared by the appellants.  So far as footnotes  and editorial notes are concerned, it cannot be denied that  these are the publisher\022s own creations and based on  publisher\022s own research and thus will have a copyright of  the appellants.  The Division Bench modified the judgment  of the Single Judge by directing the respondents that they  shall be entitled to sell their CD-ROMs with the text of  the judgments of the Supreme Court along with there own  headnotes, editorial notes, if any, which should not in any  way be copy of the headnotes of the appellants.  The  respondents shall also not copy the footnotes and editorial  notes appearing in the journal of the appellants.  Thus,  the Court has not accepted the case of the appellants that  they have a copyright in the copy-edited judgments of the  Supreme Court.  Aggrieved by the decision of the Division  Bench of  Delhi High Court, the appellants have filed these  appeals by special leave.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 58  

7.              The appellants have claimed that the copyright  subsists in SCC as a law report as a whole based  cumulatively and compendiously on all the substantial  contributions of skill, labour and capital in the creation  of various parts of SCC, i.e., headnotes, editorial notes,  footnotes, the version of the copy-edited text of judgments  as published in the appellants\022 law report SCC, the  selection of cases as published in SCC, the sequence and  arrangement of  cases as published in SCC and the index,  table of cases, etc. which are published in each volume of  SCC, that give it the SCC volumes and  thereby complete SCC  set, its character as a work as a whole.   The appellants  claim that the copyright subsists in the copy-edited  version.  The appellants do not claim copyright in the raw  text of the judgments, certified copies of which are  obtained from the Registry.  The appellants do not claim a  monopoly in publishing judgments of the Supreme Court as  they are being published by other publishers also without  copying from each other publication.  The appellants claim  that their copyright is in the copy-edited version of the  text of  judgments as published in SCC which is a creation  of the appellants\022 skill, labour and capital and there are  contributions/inputs/ additions of the appellants in  creating their version of the text of judgments as  published in SCC.  The appellants placed before us the  following contributions, inputs and additions made by them  to the text in the certified copies of the judgments  received by them from the Registry.  The appellants assert  that originality inheres in the following aspects of its  editorial process which are selected, coordinated and  

arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole  constitutes an original work of the appellants.

MATTER ADDED PER SE TO THE RAW TEXT OF THE JUDGMENTS

1.      Cross-citations are added to the citations(s) already  given in the original text  

For example,            a.      SCC/AIR/LLJ citations added in addition to the  SCR citation given in the text and cross- citations separated by \023:\024

Raw text obtained  from Registry:

SCC Page: Corresponding  citations from SCC  Page: R. Chitralakha and  Anr. v. State of  Mysore & Ors. 1964  (6) SCR 368 at 388  and Triloki Nath  v. J.& K State  1969 (1) SCR 103  at 105 and K.C.  Vasanth Kumar v.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 58  

Karnataka 1985  Supp. (1) SCR 352 R. Chitralakha v.  State of Mysore  and Triloki Nath  v. State of J & K  (II) and K. C.  Vasanth Kumar v.  State of  Karnataka. (1964) 6 SCR  368, 388: AIR  1964 SC 1823

(1969) 1 SCR  103, 105: AIR  1969 SC 1:  (1970) 1 LLJ  629

1985 Supp SCC 714:  1985 Supp 1 SCR  352

b.      FCR, IA, Bom LR citations added in addition to  the AIR citation given in raw text and cross- citations separated by \023:\024

Raw text obtained  from Registry:

SCC Page: Corresponding  citations from SCC  Page: Dr Hori Ram Singh  vs. Emperor (AIR  1938 FC 43),  Gokulchand  Dwarkadas Morarka  vs. The King  (AIR  1948 PC 82),  Shreekantiah  Ramayya Munipalli  vs. State of  Bombay (AIR 1955  SC 287) Hori Ram Singh  (Dr) v. Emperor,  Gokulchand  Dwarkadas Morarka  v. R.,Shreekantiah  Ramayya Munipalli  v. State of  Bombay. AIR 1939 FC 43:  1939 FCR 159

AIR 1948 PC 82: 75  IA 30

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 58  

AIR 1955 SC 287:  57 Bom LR 632

2. (a)     Names of cases and cross-citations are added  where only the citation of the case is given in the  original text.

For example,

     Citation alone given in text replaced with  full case name: \023M.P. Oil Extraction (P) Ltd. v.  State of M.P.\024 and Jab LJ cross-citation added to  AIR citation already in raw text, and separated  by \023:\024   Raw text obtained  from Registry:

SCC Page: Corresponding  citation from SCC  Page: The said decision has  been reported in AIR  1982 M.P. 1. The said decision  has been reported  in M.P. Oil  Extraction (P) Ltd.  v. State of M.P.

AIR 1982 MP 1: 1982  Jab LJ 795 2(b).   Citations and cross-citations are added where  only name of the case is given in the original text.     

For example Name of case in text replaced with full case reference  and cross-    citations added as per SCC style.

Raw text obtained  from Registry:

SCC Page: Corresponding  citation from SCC  Page: Division Bench of  this Court in Kishan  Lal Sharma (supra). Division Bench of  this Court in  Kishan Lal  Sharma. Kishan Lal Sharma  v. Prem Kishore,  AIR 1983 Raj 100:  1983 Raj LR 164 d) Among the  pensioners also, the  above anomaly will  prevail as pointed  out in Janaki  Prasad.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 58  

(d) Among the  pensioners also,  the above anomaly  will prevail as  pointed out in  Janaki Prasad. Janaki Prasad  Parimoo v. State  of J & K, (1973) 1  SCC 420

2(c).    Citation inserted in case-history where only the  title and year of the impugned/earlier orders are given.

For example, From the Judgment and Order dated June 17, 1980 of  Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No.  2711 of 1999: AIR 1981  Guj 15

3. SCC style of presenting (repeatedly) cited cases

For example,    

Changes have been made in the name of the cited cases  as per SCC style as \023Rattan Singh\022s case (supra)\024;  \023Mohammad\022s case (supra)\024 and \023Range Forest Officer\022s  case\024 in the raw text consecutively changed to \023Ratan  Singh case\024; \023Mohammed case and \023Range Forest Officer  case\024 in SCC.

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page: In Rattan Singh\022s case  (supra), the High Court of  Madhya Pradesh finding  certain illegalities in the  prosecution relating to  setting aside

In Mohammad\022s case (supra),  the observation of the Kerela  High Court that \023if a clear  illegality or injustice comes  to the notice of the High  Court  

In the third case relied on  by Justice M.K. Chawla,  namely, Range Forest  Officer\022s case, a vehicle  belonging to the respondent  was confiscated. 140. In Ratan Singh case the  High Court of Madhya Pradesh  finding certain illegalities

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 58  

in the prosecution relating  to setting aside  

141. In Mohammed case, the  observations of the Kerela  High Court that \023if a clear  illegality or injustice  comes to the notice of the  High Court  

142. In the third case  relied on by Justice M.K.  Chawla, namely, Range Forest  Officer case a vehicle  belonging to the respondent  was confiscated.   

* The changes have been  underlined.          

4.   Precise references to quoted matter are provided For example,           a. The exact page and paragraph number as in the  original case source is          inserted. Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page: In Balaji it is stated:

    \023It seems fairly clear  that the backward classes of  citizens for whom special  provision

After referring to the  provisions of Articles  338(3), 340 (1), 341 and 342,  the Court proceeded to hold  as follows:

   \023It would thus be seen  that this provision  contemplates that some  Backward Classes may by the  Presidential order be  included

In Balaji it is stated: (SCR  p. 458)

   \023It seems fairly clear  that the backward classes of  citizens for whom special  provision

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 58  

After referring to the  provisions of Articles  338(3), 340(1), 341 and  342, the Court  proceeded to hold as  follows: (SCR p.458)

    \023It would thus be seen  that this provision  contemplates that some  Backward Classes may by the  Presidential order be  included

It may be appropriate to  quote the relevant holding  from the judgment:

  \023When Art. 15(4) refers to  the special provision for the   advancement of certain  classes or scheduled castes  or scheduled tribes, it must  not be ignored  that the  provision which is authorised  to be made It may be appropriate to  quote the relevant holding  from the judgment: (SCR   pp.467, 470)

  \023When Article 15(4)  refers to the special  provision for the  advancement of certain  classes or Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled Tribes, it  must not be ignored  that  the provision which is  authorised to be made The Privy Council observed:  \023It may be well to add that  their Lordships judgment does  not imply that every sum paid  under mistake is recoverable  The Privy Council observed:  (IA p.302, para 17)

  \023It may be well to add  that their Lordships\022  judgment does not imply that  every sum paid under mistake  is recoverable

* The changes have been  highlighted

       b.  The exact page and paragraph number as in  the original   treatises/reference material is  inserted. Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 58  

is very instructive,       \023Supposing, for  instance, reservations were  made for a community or a  collection of communities,  the total of which  is very instructive: (CAD,  Vol. 7, pp. 701-02)       \023Supposing, for  instance, reservations were  made for a community or a  collection of communities,  the total of which is a community which is  backward in the opinion of  the Government\024. is a community which is  backward in the opinion of  the Government\024. (CAD, Vol.  7, pp. 702)

* The changes have been  highlighted.

5.  Margin headings are added to quoted extracts from  statutes/rules etc. when missing.

For example,         Section number and Margin Heading of the Section have  been   supplied.

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page: deals with sovereignty over,  and limits of, territorial  waters and says:

     \023(1) The sovereignty of  India extends and has always  extended to the territorial  waters of India (hereinafter  referred to as the  territorial waters) and to  the seabed and subsoil  underlying, and the air space  over such waters. deals with sovereignty over,  and limits of, territorial  waters and says:

   \0233. Sovereignty over,  and limits of, territorial  waters.-(1) The sovereignty  of India extends and has  always extended to the  territorial waters of India  (hereinafter referred to as  the territorial waters) and  to the seabed and subsoil

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 58  

underlying, and the air  space over such waters. It says:

   \023(1) All lands, minerals  and other things of value  underlying the ocean within  the territorial waters, or  the continental shelf, or the  exclusive economic zone, of  India shall vest in the Union  and be held for the purpose  of the Union. It says:

    \023297. Things of value  within territorial waters or  continental shelf and  resources of the exclusive  economic zone to vest in the  Union.- (1) All lands,  minerals and other things of  value underlying the ocean  within the territorial  waters, or the continental  shelf, or the exclusive  economic zone, of India  shall vest in the Union and  be held for the purpose of  the Union. That article reads as under:

\02319(1) All citizens shall  have the right That Article reads as under:

\02319. Protection of certain  rights regarding freedom of  speech, etc.- (1) All  citizens shall have the  right

6.   Number of the section/rule/article/paragraph is added  to the extract quoted in the original text

For example,                The sub-section numbers have been added to the  text.

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page: The said provision reads  as under:

   \023Where a landlord has  acquired his interest in the  premises by transfer, no suit  for the recovery of  possession of the premises on  any of the grounds mentioned  in clause (f) or clause (ff)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 58  

of  The said provision reads as  under:

   \02313. (3-A) where a  landlord has acquired his  interest in the premises by  transfer, no suit for the  recovery of possession of  the premises on any of the  grounds mentioned in clause  (f) or clause (ff) of The said sub-section reads as  under:

   \023If, in the course of any  trial under this Act of any  offence, it is found that the  accused person has committed  any other offence under this  Act or any rule made  thereunder or under any other  law,  The said sub-section reads  as under:

   \02312. (2) If, in the  course of any trial under  this Act of any offence, it  is found that the accused  person has committed any  other offence under this Act  or any rule made thereunder  or under any other law, For convenience, we reproduce  the sub-section here:

    \023Any person who is a member  of a terrorists gang or a  terrorists organization,  which is  For convenience, we  reproduce the sub-section  here:

    \0233. (5) Any person who  is a member of a terrorists\022  gang or a terrorists\022  organization, which is Sub-section (4) of Section 3  of  TADA reads thus:

  \023whoever harbours or  conceals, or attempts to  harbour or conceal, any  terrorist shall be punishable  with imprisonment for a term  which shall not be less than  five years but Sub-section (4) of Section 3  of  TADA reads thus:

  \023 3. (4) Whoever harbours  or conceals, or attempts to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 58  

harbour or conceal, any  terrorist shall be  punishable with imprisonment  for a term which shall not  be less than five years but Section 2 (1) (i) of the  TADA which reads thus:-

  \023Words and expressions  used but not defined in this  Act and defined in the code  shall have the meanings  respectively assigned to them  in the Code\024  

Indian Penal Code by the  following words in clause y  of Section 2 of the Code:

    \023words and expressions used  herein and not defined but  defined in the Indian Penal  Code Section 2 (1) (i) of  TADA  which reads thus:

     \0232. (1) (i) words and  expressions used but not  defined in this Act and  defined in the Code shall  have the meanings  respectively assigned to  them in the Code\024   

Indian Penal Code by the  following words in clause  \021y\022 of Section 2 of the  Code:

   \023 2. (y) words and  expressions used herein and  not defined but defined in  the Indian Penal Code   

7. Phrases like \021concurring\022, \021partly concurring\022, \021partly  dissenting\022, \021dissenting\022, \021supplementing\022, \021majority  expressing no opinion\022 etc. are added to the original text.

For example,  Words like \021partly dissenting\022 and  \021partly  concurring\022 have been added as per the application of  Editor\022s judgement regarding the opinions expressed by  the Judges.

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 58  

SCC Page: D.P. Wadhwa  J

  I agree that the appeal be  dismissed. However, I D. P. WADHWA, J.- (partly  concurring) I agree that the  appeal be dismissed.  However, I

S.C. AGRAWAL J.      Special leave granted. AGRAWAL, J. (partly  dissenting) \026 Special leave  granted.  KOSHAL, J.    On a perusal of the  judgment prepared by my  learned brother, Krishna  Iyer, J., I agree  respectfully with findings  (2) to (11), (13) and (14)  enumerated by him Koshal, J. (partly  dissenting) \026 On  a perusal  of the judgment prepared by  my learned brother, Krishna  Iyer, J., I agree  respectfully with findings  (2) to (11), (13) and (14)  enumerated by him

8. Judges on whose behalf opinion given: Expression such as  \023for himself and Pathak, C.J.\024, or \023Fazal Ali and Rangnath  Mishra, JJ.\024 etc. are added to the original text.

For example,           A uniform style has been mentioned by SCC to take  care of the fact that which judges have signed the  Judgment.

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page: RANGANATH MISRA, J.     We have had the benefit  of reading the judgment  passed The Judgments of the  Court were delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. (for  himself and Pathak, C.J.)  (concurring) RANGANATHAN, J.

    The seeds of the  present controversy were  sown as early as in 1946. The Judgments of the  Court were delivered by

RANGANATHAN, J. (for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 58  

himself and Ramaswami, J.)  - The seeds of the present  controversy were sown as  early as in 1946.

9. Existing paragraphs in the original text are broken up  and separate paragraph numbers are given.

For example,     Existing paragraph broken up into two paragraphs  and separate paragraph number added on  application of editorial judgment.

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page: \023but the risk involved in  sacrificing efficiency of  administration must always be  borne in mind when any State  sets about making a provision  for reservation of  appointments of posts.\024 We  see no justification to  multiply \021the risk\022, which  would be the consequence of  holding that reservation can  be provided even in the  matter of promotion.  \023but the risk involved  in sacrificing  efficiency of  administration must  always be borne in mind  when any State sets  about making a  provision for  reservation of  appointments or posts.\024  (SCR p.606)

   828.  We see no  justification to multiply  \021the risk\022, which would be  the consequence of holding  that reservation can be  provided even in the matter  of promotion. weaker segments of We, the  people of India. No other  understanding can reconcile  the claim of a radical  present and hangover of the  unjust past.\024 A similar view  was expressed in Vasant Kumar  by Chinnappa Reddy, J. The  learned Judge said \023 the mere  securing of high marks at an  examination may not  necessarily mark out a good  administrator. weaker segments of \021We,  the people of India\022. No  other understanding can

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 58  

reconcile the claim of a  radical present and  hangover of the unjust  past.\024

833. A similar view was  expressed in Vasanth Kumar by  Chinnappa Reddy, J. The  learned Judge said (SCC p.  739, para 36)              \023[T]he mere securing of  high marks at an examination  may not necessarily mark out  a good administrator.      

MATTER ADDED UPON VERIFICATION

10. Internal referenceing: Use of paragaraph numbering for  internal referencing within  a judgment.

For example, Internal paragraph numbering has been added after  uniform paragraph numbering have been provided to the  multiple judgments. Para 86, 85, 89, 90, 91 and 92  have been changed respectively to Paras 790-793, 794  and 797, 798, 799, 800 and 801 to 803.

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page: (d) \021Creamy layer\022 can be,  and must be excluded. (Para  86)

(e) It is not correct to say  that the backward class,  social, educational and  economic backwardness are  closely inter-twined in the  Indian context. (Para 85)

(f) The adequacy of  representation of a  particular class in the  services under the State is  a matter within the  subjective satisfaction of  the appropriate Government.  The judicial scrutiny in  that behalf is the same as  in other matters within the  subjective satisfaction of  an authority. (Para 89)

(4) (a) A backward class of  citizens cannot be identified  only and exclusively with  reference to economic  criteria. (Para 90)

(b) It is, of course,  permissible for the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 58  

Government or other authority  to identify a backward class  of citizens on the basis of  occupation-cum-income,  without reference to caste,  if it is so advised. (Para  91)

(5) There is no  constitutional bar to  classify the backward classes  of citizens into backward and  more backward categories.  (Para 92)    (d) \021Creamy layer\022 can be,  and must be excluded.(Paras  790-793)

(e) It is not necessary for  a class to be designated as  a backward class that it is  situated similarly to the  Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled  Tribes. (Paras 794 and 797)

(f) The adequacy of  representation of a  particular class in the  services under the State is  a matter within the  subjective satisfaction of  the appropriate Government.  The judicial scrutiny in  that behalf is the same as  in other matters within the  subjective satisfaction of  an authority. (Para 798)

(4) (a) A backward class of  citizens cannot be  identified only and  exclusively with reference  to economic criteria. (Para  799)

(b) It is, of course,  permissible for the  Government or other  authority to identify a  backward class of citizens  on the basis of occupation- cum-income, without  reference to caste, if it is  so advised. (Para 800)

(5) There is no  constitutional bar to  classify the backward  classes of citizens into  backward and more backward  categories. (Para 801 to  803)

11. Verification of first word of quoted extract and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 58  

emphasis supplied on verification.

For example, Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page: The Rajasthan High Court in  CIT v Rangnath Bangur  opined:

\023.\005that once a reassessment  proceeding is initiated, the  original order of assessment  is set aside or ceases to be  operative. The finality of  such an assessment order is  wiped out and a fresh order  of assessment would take the  place of and completely  substitute the initial order  of assessment. It is,  therefore, clear that when

The Rajasthan High Court in  CIT v. Rangnath Bangur  opined: (p.498)

\023[T]hat once a reassessment  proceeding is initiated,  the original order of  assessment is set aside or  ceases to be operative. The  finality of such an  assessment order is wiped  out and a fresh order of  assessment would take the  place of and completely  substitute the initial  order of assessment. It is,  therefore, clear that when

and said:

\023reassessment proceedings  cannot be contained only to  such income which has  escaped assessment, but the  entire assessment and said: (p. 503)

\023[R]eassessment proceedings  cannot be confined only to  such income which has  escaped assessment, but the  entire assessment  Five Judges:

\023the Constitution is the  fundamental law of the land  and it is wholly unnecessary  to provide in any law made  by the legislature that  anything done in disregard

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 58  

of the Constitution is  prohibited. Such a  prohibition is to be read in  every enactment.

\023[T]he Constitution is the  fundamental law of the land  and it is wholly unnecessary  to provide in any law made  by the legislature that  anything done in disregard  of the Constitution is  prohibited. Such a  prohibition is to be read in  every enactment.\024             (emphasis supplied)

12. Ellipsis \023\005\024  is added to indicate breaks in quoted  extract.

For example, Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page: , he has said that \023the word  \021caste\022 appearing after  \021scheduled\022 is really a  misnomer and has been used  only for the purpose of  identifying this 165), he has said that

           \023\005the word  \021caste\022 appearing after  \021scheduled\022 is really a  misnomer and has been used  only for the purpose of  identifying this Gajendragadkar, J observed:  \023Though castes in relation to  Hindus may be a relevant  factor to consider in  determining the social  backwardness of groups or  classes of citizens, it  cannot be the sole or the  dominant test in that  behalf.\024 Gajendragadkar, J. observed:

      \023\005though castes in  relation to Hindus may be a  relevant factor to consider  in determining the social  backwardness of groups or  classes of citizens, it  cannot be  made the sole or  the dominant test in that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 20 of 58  

behalf.\024 manner as may be prescribed  duties of excise on all  excisable goods which are  produced or manufactured in  India as, and at the rates,  set forth in the Schedule to  the Central Excise Tariff  Act, 1985. manner as may be prescribed  duties of excise on all  excisable goods\005 which are  produced or manufactured in  \005 India as, and at the  rates, set forth in the  Schedule to the Central  Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

13.  Matter inadvertently missed in quoted extracts is  supplied.

For example,       Incorporation of matter missing in quotations from  cases. Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page:

Where there is no express  exclusion the examination of  the remedies and the scheme  of the particular Act to find  out the intendment becomes  necessary to see if the  statute creates a special  right or a liability and  provides for the  determination of the right  Where there is no express  exclusion the examination of  the remedies and the scheme  of the particular Act to  find out the intendment  becomes necessary and the  result of the inquiry may be  decisive. In the latter case  Mr Justice M.K. Chawla  holding that parties have no  locus standi. Mr Justice M.K. Chawla  holding that Mr. H.S.  Chowdhary and other  intervening parties have no  locus standi. \02338. State to secure a social  order for the promotion of  welfare of the people. (1)  The State shall strive to  promote the welfare of the  people by securing and  protecting as effectively as  it may a social, economic and  political, shall inform all

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 21 of 58  

the institutions of the  national life. \023 38. State to secure a  social order for the  promotion of welfare of the  people.- (1) The State The  State shall strive to  promote the welfare of the  people by securing and  protecting as effectively as  it may a social order in  which justice, social,  economic and political,  shall inform all the  institutions of the national  life. The inputs of efficiency  include a sense of belonging  and of accountability (not  pejoratively used) if its  composition takes in also the  weaker segments of  we, the  people of India. The inputs of efficiency  include a sense of belonging  and of accountability which  springs in the bosom of the  bureaucracy (not  pejoratively used) if its  composition takes in also  the weaker segments of  \021We,  the people of India\022. \023It is no doubt true that the  Act was amended by U.P. Act  26 of 1975 which came into  force on August 18, 1975  taking away the power of the  Director  to make an  appointment under Section 16  F (4) of the Act in the case  of minority institutions. The  amending Act did not,  however, provide proceedings  under Section 16 F of the  Act. \023It is no doubt true that  the Act was amended by U.P.  Act 26 of 1975 which came  into force on August 18,  1975 taking away the power  of the Director to make an  appointment under Section  16-F(4) of the Act in the  case of minority  institutions. The amending  Act did not, however,  provide expressly that the  amendment in question would  apply to pending proceedings  under Section 16-F of the  Act.

* The changes have been  underlined.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 22 of 58  

14. Incomplete/incorrect case names or citations are  completed/corrected.

For example, Corrections in the case names.  

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page:

In R v. Greater London  Council 1976 (3) ALL ER 184,  one Albert Raymond Blackburn  73. In R v. Greater London  Council, ex parte Blackburn,  one Albert Raymond   Blackburn Ray, C.J. in State of Uttar  Pradesh v. Pradeep Tandon and  Ors. 1975 (2) SCR 761 at 766  has gone to the extent of  saying that: 47. Ray, CJ in State of U.P.  v. Pradip Tandon has gone to  the extent of saying that:  (SCC pp. 273-74, para 15) Reference may be made to  (1)  Hindustan Zinc V. A.P. State  Electricity Board 1991 (3)  SCC 299; (2) Sitaram Sugars  V. Union of India and Others  1990 (3) SCC 223; (3) D.C.M.  v. S. Paramjit Singh 1990 (4)  SCC 723; (4) Minerva Talkies  V. State of Karnataka and  Others 1988 Suppl SCC 176;  (5) State of Karnataka V.  Ranganath Reddy 1978 (1) SCR  641; (6) Kerala State  Electricity Board V. S.N.  Govind Prabhu 1986 (4) SCC;  (7) Prag Ice Company V. Union  of India and Others 1978 (2)  SCC 458; (8) Sarawaswati  Industries Syndicate Ltd. V.  Union of India 1975 (1) SCR  956; (9) Murti Match Works V.  Assistant Collector, Central  Excise and Others 1974 (3)  SCR 121; (10) T. Govindraja  Mudaliar V. State of Tamil  Nadu and Others 1973 (3) SCR  222; and (11) Narender Kumar  V. Union of India and Others  1969 (2) SCR 375. Reference may be made to :  (1) Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v.  A.P. State Electricity  Board; (2) Shri Sitaram  Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of  India; (3) Delhi Cloth and  General Mills Ltd. v. S.  Paramjit Singh; (4) Minerva

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 23 of 58  

Talkies v. State of  Karnataka; (5) State of  Karnataka v. Ranganath  Reddy; (6) Kerela State  Electricity Board v.  S.N.Govinda Prabhu and  Bros.; (7) Prag Ice and Oil  Mills v. Union of India; (8)  Saraswati Industries  Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of  India; (9) Murthy Match  Works v. Assistant  Collector, Central Excise;  (10) T. Govindaraja Mudaliar  v. State of T.N. and (11)  Narender Kumar v. Union of  India.

* The changes have been  underlined.

15. Other corrections  

For example,         a.      Clauses numbered in terms of answers to questions  framed by learned Judge have been renumbered  correctly in terms of questions framed, as (3)(e)  actually has been found to be answer to (3) (c)  and vice-versa.  a1. Similarly, clause has been changed to sub- clause.  

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page:

(c)  It is not necessary for  a class to be designated as  a backward class that it is  situated similarly to the  Schedule Castes/Tribes.  (Paras 87 and 88)

(d) \021Creamy layer\022 can be,  and must be excluded. (Para.  86)

(e) It is not correct to say  that the backward class of  citizen contemplated in  Article 16 (4) is the same as  the socially and  educationally backward  classes referred to in  Article 15(4). It is much  wider. The accent in Article  16(4) is on social  backwardness. Of course,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 24 of 58  

social, educational and  economic backwardness are  closely inter-twined in the  Indian context.   (c)  It is not correct to  say that the backward class  of citizen contemplated in  Article 16 (4) is the same  as the socially and  educationally backward  classes referred to in  Article 15(4). It is much  wider. The accent in Article  16(4) is on social  backwardness. Of course,  social, educational and  economic backwardness are  closely inter-twined in the  Indian context. (Paras 786- 789)  

(d) \021Creamy Layer\022 can be,  and must be excluded. (790- 793)

(e) It is not necessary for  a class to be designated as  a backward class that it is  situated similarly to the  Schedule Castes/ Schedule  Tribes. (Paras 794 and 797) that no better formula could  be produced than the one  that is embodied in clause  (3) of Article 10 of the  Constitution; they will find  that the view of those who  believe and hold that there  shall be that no better formula could  be produced than the one  that is embodied in sub- clause (3) of  Article 10 of  the Constitution; they will  find that the view of those  who believe and hold that  there shall be

16. Text has been changed as per corrigenda issued, which  have been issued upon SCC Editor\022s request and suggestions.

For example,  

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Corrigendum

This Court\022s order dated October 25, 1996 in CA 14553/96 @  SLP ) No. 5570/93 in the matter of Smt. Indira Sohan Lal  (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Union of India

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 25 of 58  

----------------------------------------------------------- Page No.    Line No.        For                  Read

1    bottom line        and deducted         deducted

2   7-8 from bottom     developed to bring    developed  to                         on par with levelled  bring them on                         land and huge         levelled land                                               and a huge

3  12-13 from bottom    compelling material,  compelling                         nor the High Court    material and                          refused to advert     High Court\022s                         to                    refusal to                                                advert to it, ----------------------------------------------------------------                   

OTHER ADDITIONS/INSERTIONS MADE TO THE RAW TEXT

17.  Compressing/simplification of information relating to  case history.

For example

Raw text obtained from Registry:

SCC Page:

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 999-1005 OF  1997 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NOS. 18380- 86 OF 1996] WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1006-1316 OF 1997 [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NOS.  20293/96, 20662/96, 21726/96, 21824- 26/96, 22224-502/96, 22771/96, 23196- 97/96, 23199/96, 23700-703/96,  23744/96,23747-48/96, 23761/96,  23763/96, 23766/96, 23775-76/96,  24285/96,24315/96,24320-22/96, 24325- 26/96, 24328-29/96 & 24224/96 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.1 IN CIVIL APPEALS  [ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.(C)NOS.  24224/96,24285/96,24315/96,24320- 22/96, 24325-26/96 & 24328-29/96. Civil Appeals Nos.  999 to 1316 of 1997  with I.A. No. 1 in  C.As. arising out of  SLPs. (C) Nos.  24224, 24285, 24315,  24320-22, 24325-26  and 24328-29 of  1996, decided on  February 20, 1997.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 26 of 58  

passed by Madhya Pradesh High Court  respectively in Misc. Petitions No.  1371 of 1992 M.P. No. 1980 of 1992  and M.P. No. 2315 of 1992. All the  said Misc. Petitions were filed  before the Madhya Pradesh High Court  under Article 226 of the  Constitution. passed by Madhya  Pradesh High Court  respectively in  Miscellaneous  Petitions Nos. 1371,  1980 and 2315 of  1992. All the said  miscellaneous  petitions were filed  before the Madhya  Pradesh High Court  under Article 226 of  the Constitution

* The changes have  been underlined.

(SCC HAS UNIQUE STYLE)  18.  There are certain norms followed at SCC for giving  case names.

For example,

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page:

Budh Prakash Jai Prakash v.  Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur  [1952 A.L.J. 332] Budh Prakash Jai Prakash v.  STO Indian Aluminium Cables  Limited vs. State of Haryana Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd.  v. State of Haryana  Trilok Nath Tiku & Another v.  State of Jammu & Kashmir and  Others  Triloki Nath Tiku v. State  of J & K (I) R. Chitralekha and Anr. v.  State of Mysore & Ors. 1964  (6) SCR 368 at 388 and  Triloki Nath v. J & K State  1969 (1) SCR 103 at 105 and  K.C. Vasanth Kumar v.  Karnataka 1985 Supp. (1) SCR  352 R. Chitralekha v. State of  Mysore  and  Triloki Nath v.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 27 of 58  

State of J & K (II) and K.C.  Vasanth Kumar v. State of  Karnataka Minor P. Rajendran V. State  of Madras & Ors. 1968 (2) SCR  786 at 790  P. Rajendran v. State of  Madras State of Andhra Pradesh V. P.  Sagar 1968 (3) SCR 595 State of A.P. v. P. Sagar K.S. Venkataraman and Bharat  Kala Bhandar Ltd. v. M.C.  Dhamangaon K.S. Venkataramanan and  Bharat Kala Bhandar Ltd. v.  Municipal Committee

19.  Words like \023Section\024, Sec.\024, \023Rule\024 etc. are omitted,  and only the number of the Section/Rule is given at the  beginning of the quoted extract.

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page:

\023Sec 2 (h). \023terrorist act\024  has the meaning assigned to  it in sub-section (1) of  Section 3, and the expression   \023terrorist\024 shall be  construed accordingly;\024 \0232 (h) \021terrorist act\022 has  the meaning assigned to it  in sub-section (1) of  Section 3, and the  expression \021terrorist\022 shall  be construed accordingly;\024 \023Rule 11. No refund of duties  or charges erroneously paid,  unless claimed within three  months -- No duties or  charges which have been paid  or have been adjusted in an  account current maintained  with the Collector \02311. No refund of duties or  charges erroneously paid,  unless claimed within three  months.--  No duties or  charges which have been paid  or have been adjusted in an  account current maintained  with the Collector \023RULE 233B. Procedure to be  followed to cases where duty  is paid under protest.-- (1)  Where an assessee desires to  pay duty under protest he  shall deliver to the proper  officer a letter to this  \023233-B. Procedure to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 28 of 58  

followed in cases where duty  is paid under protest.\027 (1)  Where an assessee desires to  pay duty under protest he  shall deliver to the proper  officer a letter to this

20.  Margin heading and the first clause/sub-section or  initial matter of section/rule etc. is made to \021run-on\022,  instead of being let to start from a fresh line.

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page:

\023Liability of person to whom  money is paid or thing  delivered by mistake or under  coercion-- 72. A person to  whom money has been paid, or  anything delivered, by  mistake or under coercion,  must repay or return it. \02372. Liability of person to  whom money is paid or thing  delivered, by mistake or  under coercion.--  A person  to whom money has been paid,  or anything delivered, by  mistake or under coercion,  must repay or return it.

Sec 424. Refund of automobile  accessories tax.

(a) No refund shall be made  of any amount paid by or  collected from any  manufacturer, producer, or  importer in respect

\023424. Refund of automobile  accessories tax. \026 (a) No  refund shall be made of any  amount paid by or collected  from any manufacturer,   producer, or importer in  respect

Section 3, which is the  charging Section, reads:- \0233. Duties specified in the  Schedule to the Central  Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to be  levied.            (1) There shall be  levied and collected in such  manner as may be prescribed  duties

175. Section 3, which is the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 29 of 58  

charging section, reads: \0233. Duties specified in the  Schedule to the Central  Excise Tariff Act, 1985 to  be levied. - (1) There shall  be levied and collected in  such manner as may be  prescribed duties

21. Compressing of unquoted referends and use of *** for  such   parts.

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page:

\021six months\022, the words  \021five years\022 were  substituted.

Explanation

(ii)\022relevant date- means,

(a)     in the case of  excisable goods on  which duty of excise  has not been levied or  paid or has been short- levied or short-paid\005 (c) in any other case, the  date on which the duty is  to be paid under this Act  or the rules made  thereunder;

\021six months\022, the words  \021five years\022 were  substituted.

Explanation.--

(1)-(2)      *      *     *        

(3) (i)      *      *     *        

(ii) \021relevant date\022 means,  --

     (a) in  the case of  excisable goods on which  duty of excise has not been  levied or paid or has been  short-levied or short-paid\005        (c) in any other  case, the date on which the  duty is to be paid under  this Act or the rules made  thereunder,\024

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 30 of 58  

(i)\005\005\005\005\005\005.. (ii)\005\005\005\005\005\005.. (iii) where the landlord of  any building is  (1)     a serving or retired  Indian Soldier as  defined in the Indian  Soldiers (Litigation)  Act, 1925 (IV of 1925)  and such building was  let out at any time  before his retirement,  or (2)     \005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005 and such landlord needs  such building for  occupation by himself or  the members of his family  for residential purposes,  

(i)-(ii) *      *     *        

(iii) where the landlord of  any building is-

(1)     a serving or retired  Indian Soldier as  defined in the Indian  Soldiers (Litigation)  Act, 1925 (IV of  1925), and such  building was let out  at any time before  his retirement, or (2)     *      *     *      

and   such landlord needs  such building for  occupation by himself or  the members of his family  for residential purposes,

22.  Series of dots in the raw texts (i.e., \005\005\005\005..) are  replaced with ellipsis (i.e., \005).

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page:

so to say into the  administration\005\005\005\005\005.that no  better formula could be  produced than the one that is  embodied in clause (3) of  Article 10 of the  Constitution; they will find  that the view of those who  believe and hold that there  shall be equality of  opportunity has been embodied  in sub-clause (1) of Article  10. It is a generic principle

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 31 of 58  

\005\005\005\005\005 Supposing for instance,  we are to concede in full the  demand of those communities  who have not been so far  employed in the public  services to the fullest  extent, what would really  happen is, we shall be  completely destroying the  first proposition upon which  we are all agreed, namely,  that there shall be in an  equality of opportunity\005\005.I  am sure they will agree that  unless you use some such  qualifying so to say into the  administration\005 that no  better formula could be  produced than the one that  is embodied in sub-clause  (3) of Article 10 of the  Constitution; they will find  that the view of those who  believe and hold that there  shall be equality of  opportunity, has been  embodied in sub-clause (1)  of Article 10. It is a  generic principle\005.  Supposing for instance, we  are to concede in full the  demand of those communities  who have not been so far  employed in the public  services to the fullest  extent, what would really  happen is, we shall be  completely destroying the  first proposition upon which  we are all agreed, namely,  that there shall be in an  equality of opportunity\005. I  am sure they will agree that  unless you use some such  qualifying

23.  Removal of abbreviations: sec., R. and cl. are  substituted respectively with \023Section\024, \023Rule\024 or  \023clause\024.            

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page:

Having regard to the object  and language of s. 34 of the  I.T. Act, 1922, s. 147 of the  I.T. Act, 1961, and s. 8 of  the Surtax Act, 1964, the  reopening of an assessment  can only be for the benefit  of the Revenue subject to one

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 32 of 58  

exception, \023Having regard to the object  and language of Section 34  of the I.T. Act, 1922,  Section 147 of the I.T. Act,  1961, and Section 8 of the  Surtax Act, 1964, the  reopening of an assessment  can only be for the benefit  of the Revenue subject to  one exception, \023\005\005 it would not be in  accordance either with cl.  (1) of Art. 15 or cl. (2) of  Art. 29 to require the  consideration of the castes  of persons to be borne in  mind for determining what are  socially and educationally  backward classes. It is true  that cl. (4) of Art. 15  contains a non-obstante  clause with the result  \023\005 it would not be in  accordance either with  clause (1) of Article 15 or  clause (2) of Article 29 to  require the consideration of  the castes of persons to be  borne in mind for  determining what are  socially and educationally  backward classes. It is true  that clause (4) of Article  15 contains a non-obstante  clause with the result

* The changes have been  underlined.

24.  Hyphenation has been added after the section/rule  numbers, which have alphabets, suffixed to them.

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page:

SCOPE OF SECTIONS 11B, 11D,  12A, 12B, 12C AND 12D OF THE  CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944

       Sections 11B and 11D  in Chapter II and Sections  12A, 12B, 12C and 12D in  Chapter II-A are now to be  considered:-

\02311B. Claim for refund of  duty

(1) Any person claiming

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 33 of 58  

refund of any duty of excise  may make an application for  refund of such duty to the  Assistant Commissioner of  Central Excise before the  Scope of Sections 11-B, 11- D, 12-A, 12-B, 12-C and 12-D  of The Central Excises and  Salt Act, 1944

       Sections 11-B and  11-D in Chapter II and  Sections 12-A, 12-B, 12-C  and 12-D in Chapter II-A are  now to be considered:

\02311B. Claim for refund of  duty.- (1) Any person  claiming refund of any duty  of excise may make an  application for refund of  such duty to the Assistant  Collector of Central Excise  before the

 * The changes have been  underlined.

25.  Indentation

For example

SCC style of presentation of quoted extracts in  separate indented paragraphs applied to raw text.

Raw text obtained from  Registry SCC Page

As Chinnappa Reddy, J. in  Vasanth Kumar has rightly  observed, \023Always one hears  the word \021efficiency\022 as if  it is sacrosanct and the  sanctorum has to be fiercely  guarded.  \021Efficiency\022 is not  a mantra which is whispered  by the Guru in the Sishya\022s  ear.\024

57.  As Chinnappa Reddy, J.  in Vasanth Kumar has rightly  observed:   (SCC p.739, para  36)

       \023Always one hears  the word \021efficiency\022 as  if it is sacrosanct and  the sanctorum has to be  fiercely guarded.   \021Efficiency\022 is not a  mantra which is whispered

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 34 of 58  

by the Guru in the  Sishya\022s ear.\024

26.  Removal of full stops or removal of word \023No.\024.

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page:

The appellant says that each  of these R.S.Os. maintains an  office, a stock yard and  other necessary paraphernalia  for receiving, stocking,  repairing and delivering  motor vehicles to their  customers. The appellant says  that almost seventy percent  of its sales are to parties  other than State Transport  Undertakings S.T.Us. The  sales to S.T.Us., are in the  region of thirty percent of  its production. The R.S.Os.,  the appellant says, contact  the local purchasers and the  S.T.Us., book the order and  also deliver the vehicles to  them pursuant to sales  effected by them. The  appellant always keeps the  R.S.Os. well stocked having  regard to their requirements.  By way of illustration, it is  stated, the R.S.O. at  Hyderabad The appellant says that each  of these RSOs maintains an  office, a stock yard and  other necessary  paraphernalia for receiving,  stocking, repairing and  delivering motor vehicles to  their customers. The  appellant says  almost  seventy per cent of its  sales are parties other than  State Transport Undertakings  (STUs). The sales to STUs  are in the region of thirty  per cent of its production.  The RSOs, the appellant  says, contact the local  purchasers and the STUs book  the orders and also deliver  the vehicles to them  pursuant to sales effected  by them. The appellant  always keeps the RSOs well  stocked having regard to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 35 of 58  

their requirements. By way  of illustration, it is  stated, the RSO at   Hyderabad All the three special leave  petitions namely S.L.P.  (Civil) No. 19279 of 1995,  S.L.P. (Civil ) No. 20137 of  1995 and S.L.P. (Civil ) No.  19796 of 1995 are directed  against common judgment dated  9.5.1995 2.  All the three special  leave petititions namely SLP  (Civil) No. 19729 of 1995,  SLP (Civil ) No. 20137 of  1995 and SLP (Civil ) No.  19796 of 1995 are directed  against common judgment  dated 9-5-1995

* The changes have been  underlined.

27.  Giving full forms of abbreviations to enhance  readability and clarity.

Raw text obtained from  Registry:

SCC Page:

from legal consequences and  therefore, they are also  guilty of the offence u/s 201  IPC. from legal consequences and  therefore, they are also  guilty of the offence  under  Section 201 IPC.\024

* The changes have been  underlined.

In addition to the above, capitalization and italicization  is made wherever necessary in the raw text; and  punctuation, articles, spellings and compound words are  also checked and corrected, if required, in the original  text.

8.              The copyright protection finds its justification  in fair play.  When a person produces something with his  skill and labour, it normally belongs to him and the other  person would not be permitted to make a profit out of the  skill and labour of the original author and it is for this  reason the Copyright Act, 1957 gives to the authors certain  exclusive rights in relation to the certain work referred  in the Act.  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.  Copyright is a right

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 36 of 58  

to stop others from exploiting the work without the consent  or assent of the owner of the copyright.  A 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.  One of the key requirements is that of  originality which contributes, and has a direct nexus, in  maintaining the interests of the author as well as that of   public in protecting the matters in public domain.  It is a  well-accepted principle of copyright law that there is no  copyright in the facts per se, as the facts are not created  nor have they originated with the author of any work which  embodies these facts.  The issue of copyright is closely  connected to that of commercial viability, and commercial  consequences and implications.   9.              The development of copyright law in India is  closely associated with the British copyright law.  Statute  of Anne, the first Copyright Act in England, was passed in  17th century which provided that the author of any book  already printed will have the sole right of printing such  book for a term mentioned therein.  Thereafter, came the  Act of 1814, and then the Act of 1842 which repealed the  two earlier Acts of 1709 and 1814.  The Copyright Act of  1911 in England had codified and consolidated the various  earlier Copyright Acts on different works. Then came the  Copyright Act of 1956. In India, the first Copyright Act  was passed in 1914.  This was nothing but a copy of the  Copyright Act of 1911 of United Kingdom with suitable  modifications to make it applicable to the then British  India.  The Copyright Act of 1957, which is the current  statute, has followed and adopted the principles and  provisions contained in the U.K. Act of 1956 along with  introduction of many new provisions.  Then came the  Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1983 which made a number of  amendments to the Act of 1957 and the Copyright (Amendment)  Act, 1984 which was mainly introduced with the object to  discourage and prevent the widespread piracy prevailing in  video films and records.  Thereafter, the Copyright  (Amendment) Act, 1994 has effected many major amendments in  the Copyright Act of 1957.   10.             In the present case, the questions which require  determination by the Court are : (1) What shall be the  standard of originality in  the copy-edited judgments of  the Supreme Court which is a derivative work and what would  be required in a derivative work to treat it the original  work of an author and thereby giving a protected right  under the Copyright Act, 1957 to the author of the  derivative work ? and (2) Whether the entire version of the  copy-edited text of the judgments published in the  appellants\022 law report SCC would be entitled for a  copyright as an original literary work, the copy-edited  judgments having been claimed as a result of inextricable  and inseparable admixture of the copy-editing inputs and  the raw text, taken together, as a result of insertion of  all SCC copy-editing inputs into the raw text, or whether  the appellants would be entitled to the copyright in some  of the inputs which have been put in the raw text ? 11.             Copyright is purely a creation of the statute  under the 1957 Act.  What rights the author has in his work  by virtue of his creation, are defined in Sections 14 and  17 of the Act.  These are exclusive rights, but subject to  the other provisions of the Act.  In the first place, the  work should qualify under the provisions of Section 13, for  the subsistence of copyright.  Although the rights have  been referred to as exclusive rights, there are various

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 37 of 58  

exceptions to them which are listed in Section 52.   12.             We are mainly concerned for the purpose of these  appeals with Sections 2 [clauses (k), (o), (y)], 13(1),  14(1)(a), 17, proviso (d) and 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright  Act, 1957.  The relevant provisions of these Sections are  as under: \0232. Interpretation.-  In this Act, unless  the  context otherwise requires, -

xxx                             xxx                                     xxx (k) "Government work" means a work which is made  or published by or under the direction or control  of - (i)     the Government or any department of the  Government; (ii)    any Legislature in India; (iii)   any Court, Tribunal or other  judicial authority in India;\024

xxx                             xxx                                     xxx \023(o) "literary work" includes computer  programmes, tables and compilations including  computer databases;\024

xxx                             xxx                                     xxx \023(y) "work" means any of the following works,  namely:- (i)     a literary, dramatic, musical or  artistic work; (ii)    a cinematograph film; (iii)   a sound recording;\024

\02313.  Works in which copyright subsists. - (1)  Subject to the provisions of this section and the  other provisions of this Act, copyright shall  subsist throughout India in the following classes  of works, that is to say, -  (a)     original literary, dramatic, musical  and artistic works; (b)     cinematograph films; and (c)     sound recording,         (2)     Copyright shall not subsist in any work  specified in sub-section (1), other than a work  to which the provisions of section 40 or section  41, apply, unless -

       (i) in the case of a published work, the  work is first published in India, or where the  work is first published outside India, the author  is at the date of such publication, or in a case  where the author was dead at that date, was at  the time of his death, a citizen of India;

       (ii) in the case of an unpublished work  other than a work of architecture, the author is  at the date of the making of the work a citizen  of India or domiciled in India; and

       (iii) in the case of a work of architecture,  the work is located in India.

       Explanation.- In the case of a work of joint  authorship, the conditions conferring copyright  specified in this sub-section shall be satisfied  by all the authors of the work.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 38 of 58  

       (3)     Copyright shall not subsist -

       (a) in any cinematograph film if a  substantial part of the film is an infringement  of the copyright in any other work;

       (b) in any sound recording made in respect  of a literary, dramatic or musical work, if in  making the sound recording, copyright in such  work has been infringed.

     xxx                               xxx                             xxx\024

\02314.  Meaning of copyright. \026 (1) For the  purposes of this Act,  "copyright" means the  exclusive right, subject to the provisions of  this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of  the following acts in respect of a work or any  substantial part thereof, namely:- (a)     in the case of a literary, dramatic or  musical work, not being a computer programme, - (i)     to reproduce the work in any material  form including the storing of it in any  medium by electronic means; (ii)    to issue copies of the work to the  public not being copies already in  circulation; (iii)   to perform the work in public, or  communicate it to the public; (iv)    to make any cinematograph film or  sound recording in respect of the work; (v)     to make any translation of the work;  (vi)    to make any adaptation of the  work; (vii)   to do, in relation to a  translation or an adaptation of the work,  any of the acts specified in relation to the  work in sub-clauses (i) to (vi); xxx                             xxx                                     xxx\024

\02317. First owner of copyright.- Subject to the  provisions of this Act, the author of a work  shall be the first owner of the copyright  therein:     Provided that - xxx                 xxx                      xxx                                (d)  in the case of a Government work, Government  shall, in the absence of any agreement to the  contrary, be the first owner of the copyright  therein; xxx                 xxx                      xxx\024                                

\02352.  Certain acts not to be infringement of  copyright.- (1)  The following acts shall not  constitute an infringement of copyright, namely:  - (a) \005. xxx                     xxx                                     xxx (q) the reproduction or publication of - (i)     \005  xxx                        xxx               xxx (iv)    any judgment or order of a  Court, Tribunal or other judicial  authority, unless the reproduction or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 39 of 58  

publication of such judgment or order  is prohibited by the Court, the  Tribunal or other judicial authority,  as the case may be;

xxx                                 xxx                 xxx\024        13.             Subject to the provisions of Section 13 and the  other provisions of the Act, there shall be a copyright  throughout India in original literary work, dramatic,  musical and artistic works, cinematograph films and sound  recording, subject to the exceptions provided in sub- sections (2) and (3) of Section 13.  For copyright  protection, all literary works have to be original as per  Section 13 of the Act.  Broadly speaking, there would be  two classes of literary works : (a) primary or prior works:   These are the literary works not based on existing subject- matter and, therefore, would be called primary or prior  works; and (b) secondary or derivative works: These are  literary works based on existing subject-matter.  Since  such works are based on existing subject-matter, they are  called derivative work or secondary work.  Work is defined  in Section 2(y) which would be a literary, dramatic,  musical or artistic work; a cinematograph film; and a sound  recording.  Under Section 2(o), literary work would include  computer programmes, tables and compilations including  computer databases.  For the purposes of the Act, Section  14(1) enumerates what shall be a copyright which is an  exclusive right, subject to the provisions of the Act, to  do or authorize the doing of the acts provided in clauses  (i) to (vii) in respect of a work or any substantial part  thereof in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical  work, not being a computer programme.  Section 2(k) defines  the ‘government work\022 which would be a work which is made  or published by or under the direction or control of,  amongst others, any Court, Tribunal or other judicial  authority in India.  By virtue of this definition, the  judgments delivered by the Supreme Court would be a  government work.  Under Section 17(d), the Government  shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be  the first owner of the copyright in a government work.  In  the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the  government shall be the first owner of the copyright in the  judgments of the Supreme Court, the same being a government  work under Section 2(k).  Section 52(1) expressly provides  that certain acts enumerated therein shall not constitute  an infringement of copyright and sub-clause (iv) of clause  (q) excludes the reproduction or publication of any  judgment or order of a Court, Tribunal or other judicial  authority, unless the reproduction or publication of such  judgment or order is prohibited by the Court, the Tribunal  or other judicial authority from copyright. The judicial  pronouncements of the Apex Court would be in the public  domain and its reproduction or publication would not  infringe the copyright.  The reproduction or publication of  the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court by any number  of persons would not be infringement of  a copyright of the  first owner thereof, namely, the Government, unless it is  prohibited.  The question, therefore, is whether by  introducing certain inputs in a judgment delivered by a  court   it becomes \023original copy-edited judgment\024 and the  person or authority or company who did so could claim to  have embodied the originality in the said judgment and the  judgment takes the colour of original judgment having a  copyright therein of its publisher.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 40 of 58  

14.             In many cases, a work is derived from an existing  work.  Whether in such a derivative work, a new copyright  work is created, will depend on various factors, and would  one of them be only skill, capital and labour expended upon  it to qualify for copyright protection in a derivative  literary work created from the pre-existing material in the  public domain, and the required exercise of independent  skill, labour and capital in its creation by the author  would qualify him for the copyright protection in the  derivative work. Or would it be the creativity in a  derivative work in which the final position will depend  upon the amount and value of the corrections and  improvements, the independent skill & labour, and the  creativity in the end-product is such as to create a new  copyright work to make the creator of the derivative work  the author of it; and if not, there will be no new  copyright work and then the original author will remain the  author of the original work and the creator of the  derivative work will have been the author of the  alterations or the inputs put therein, for their nature  will not have been such as to attract the protection under  the law of copyright.          15.             It is submitted by Shri Raju Ramachandran,  learned senior counsel for the appellants that Section  52(1)(q)(iv) of the Act does not bar the recognization of  copyright in the copy-edited version of the text of  judgments of the courts as published in law reports.  The  Government is the first owner of copyright in the judgments  of the courts as per Section 2(k) read with Section 17 and  Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Act provides that any person  wanting to reproduce or publish judgments would not  infringe the copyright of the Government, but Section  52(1)(q)(iv) does not imply that in  case a person has  expended independent skill, labour and capital on the  judgments of the courts to create and publish his version  of the judgments, any other person is free to copy that  person\022s version of the judgments, substantially or in its  entirely.  Copyright subsists  in the copy-edited version  of the text of judgments of the courts as published in law  reports, which have been created by the application of  skill, labour and capital which is not trivial or  negligible.  The inputs put in the copy-edited judgments in  SCC, is a derivative literary work created from pre- existing material of the judgments of the court which is in  public domain. The exercise of independent skill, labour  and capital  in its creation by the author of such work,  and the derivative literary work created by the expenditure  of the independent skill, labour and capital of the  appellants gives them copyright in such creations.  It is  not necessary that work created should have a literary  merit.  The courts can only evaluate whether the skill,  labour and capital actually employed, required in creating  the work, is not trivial or negligible.  It is further  urged by the learned senior counsel that in deciding  whether a derivative work qualifies for copyright  protection, it must be considered as a whole, and it is not  correct to dissect the work into fragments and consider the  copyrightability of each such fragment piecemeal and  individually apart from the whole.  He  submits that the  respondents if wish to reproduce or publish a work already  in public domain is obliged to go to the public  domain/common source of such work rather than  misappropriating the effort and investment of the  appellants by copying the version of such work which was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 41 of 58  

created by them by independent expenditure of skill, labour  and capital.  To buttress his submissions, the learned  senior counsel placed reliance on various foreign judgments  and judgments of the Indian High Courts which are  considered hereinafter. 16.              Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. Willim Hill  (Football) Ltd.,  [1964] 1 WLR 273 (HL), is a case where  the concept of originality was considered on the basis of  skill, judgment and/or labour in the context of  compilation. Since 1951 the respondents, who were well- known bookmakers, had sent their customers each week fixed  odds football betting coupons arranged in a certain general  form.  In 1959 the appellants, who were also bookmakers,  started sending out coupons closely resembling the  respondents\022 coupons.  A coupon was a sheet of paper on  which were printed several lists of forthcoming matches.   Beside each list were columns of squares on which the  punter could indicate his forecast of the result of each  match. Some of the lists included all the matches to be  played; others included only a selection of them. The bets  varied in character.  A great variety of bets was offered  and the odds offered differed widely from 5-2 to 20,000-1.  The respondents\022 coupon contained 16 lists, each  with an  appropriate name. The appellants\022 coupon, which contained  15 lists, closely resembled the respondents\022.  The lists  offered by the appellants were almost identical with those  offered by the respondents in their corresponding lists.    The respondents brought action claiming copyright in the  coupons.  The House of Lords was called upon to determine  whether or to what extent copyright attached to these  coupons.  The respondents said that a coupon must be  regarded as a single work and that as such it was protected  by copyright. The appellants sought to dissect the coupon.   It was contended by the respondents that there had been a  breach of copyright by the appellants, since the  respondents\022 compilation, which must be regarded as a  single work, was original and protected by copyright and  the part taken by the appellants from the respondents\022 work  was substantial. It did not follow that because the  fragments of the compilation, taken separately, would not  be copyright, the whole could not be copyright.  It was  submitted by the appellants that the derivative work of the  respondents not being original, no copyright can be claimed  and the inputs put, if considered separately, are of  insignificant value and thus the respondents could not  claim copyright.   The word ‘original\022 does not mean that the work must be the  expression of original or inventive thought. Copyright Acts  are not concerned with the originality of ideas, but with  the expression of thought, and in the case of literary  work, with the expression of thought in print or writing.  The originality which is required relates to the expression  of the thought. But the Act does not require that the  expression must be in an original or novel form, but that  the work must not be copied from another work - that it  should originate from the author; and as regards  compilation, originality is a matter of degree depending on  the amount of skill, judgment or labour that has been  involved in making the compilation.   The words \021literary  work\022 cover work which is expressed in print or writing  irrespective of the question whether the quality or style  is high.  The commonplace matter put together or arranged  without the exercise of more than negligible work, labour  and skill in making the selection will not be entitled to  copyright.  The word \021original\022 does not demand original or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 42 of 58  

inventive thought, but only that the work should not be  copied but should originate from the author.  In deciding,  therefore, whether a work in the nature of a compilation is  original, it is wrong to consider individual parts of it  apart from the whole.  For many compilations have nothing  original in their parts, yet the sum total of the  compilation may be original.  In such cases the courts have  looked to see whether the compilation of the unoriginal  material called for work or skill or expense. If it did, it  is entitled to be considered original and to be protected  against those who wish to steal the fruits of the work or  skill or expense by copying it without taking the trouble  to compile it themselves.   In each case, it is a question  of degree whether the labour or skill or ingenuity or  expense involved in the compilation is sufficient to  warrant a claim to originality in a compilation. 17.             While considering the question whether the  copyright protection is available to the work created as a  whole or the fragment of the work would be considered  piecemeal and individually apart from the whole, the House  of Lords said as under:              \023\005. One test may be whether the part which he has  taken is novel or striking, or is merely a commonplace  arrangement of ordinary words or well-known data.  So  it may sometimes be a convenient short cut to ask  whether the part taken could by itself be the subject  of copyright.  But, in my view, that is only a short  cut, and the more correct approach is first to  determine whether the plaintiffs\022 work as a whole is  ‘original\022 and protected by copyright, and then to  inquire whether the part taken by the defendant is  substantial.        A wrong result can easily be reached if one begins by  dissecting the plaintiffs\022 work and asking, could  section A be the subject of copyright if it stood by  itself, could section B be protected if it stood by  itself, and so on.  To my mind, it does not follow  that, because the fragments taken separately would not  be copyright, therefore, the whole cannot be. \005\005\024                18.             In the case of Walter and Another v. Lane, [1900]   AC 539 (HL), the Earl of Rosebery on five occasions in 1896  and 1898 delivered to the public audience speeches on  subjects of public interest. The Reporter of ‘The Times\022  took down the speeches in shorthand, wrote out their notes,  corrected, revised and punctuated them and the reports were  published in ‘The Times, the speeches being given verbatim  as delivered by Lord Rosebery.  The reporters were employed  under the terms that the copyright in all reports and   articles composed by ‘The Time\022 magazine should belong to  the proprietors.  In the year 1899, the respondent  published a book called \026 \023Appreciations and Addresses:  Lord Rosebery\024, which contained the reports of the above  speeches of Lord Rosebery and it was admitted that these  reports were taken from the reports in ‘The Times\022.  Lord  Rosebery made no claim. The appellants brought an action  against the respondent claiming a declaration that a  copyright of the articles and  reports was vested in the  proprietors of ‘The Times\022.   The issue involved in the  case was whether a person who makes notes of a speech  delivered in public, transcribes them and publishes in the  newspaper a verbatim report of the speech, is the author of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 43 of 58  

the report within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 1842,  and is entitled to the copyright in the report.  The House  of Lords held that each reporter is entitled to report and  each undoubtedly would have a copyright in his own  published report.  It was of course open to any other  reporter to compose his own report of Lord Rosebery\022s  speech, and to any other newspaper and book to publish that  report; but it is a sound principle that a man shall not  avail himself of another\022s skill, labour and expense by  copying the written product thereof; and copyright has  nothing to do with the originality or the literary merits  of the author or composer. It may exist in the information  given by a street dictionary.  If a person chooses to  compose and write a volume devoid of the faintest spark of  literary or any other merit, there is no legal reason why  he should not, if he desires, become the first publisher of  it and register his copyright, worthless and insignificant  as it would be. 19.             In the case of Designers Guild Ltd. v. Russell  Williams (Textiles) Ltd., [2000] 1 WLR  2416 (HL), the  plaintiff brought proceedings claiming that the defendant  had infringed the plaintiff\022s copyright by copying one of  its fabric designs, i.e. for the fabric design Ixia. The  infringement of which the plaintiff complained was that for  the purpose of creating its own design Marguerite by the  defendant.  The defendant had copied a substantial part of  Ixia.  There were mainly two main issues at the trial.  First, what, if anything had the designer of Marguerite  copied from Ixia. Secondly, did what had been copied amount  to \023the whole or a substantial part\024 of Ixia?  It was said  by the House of Lords that the law of copyright rests on a  very clear principle that anyone who by his or her own  skill and labour creates an original work of whatever  character shall enjoy an exclusive right to copy that work.  No one else may for a season reap what the copyright owner  had sown. 20.      University of London Press Limited v. University  Tutorial Press Limited,  [1916] 2 Ch 601,  is perhaps the  most cited judgment regarding originality.  Originality was  held to be not required to be noval form but the work  should not be copied from other work, that is, it should be  original. The judgment was based on the following facts:  Certain persons were appointed as examiners for  matriculation examination of the University of London on  a  condition that any copyright in the examination papers  should belong to the University. The University assigned  the copyright to the plaintiff company. After the  examination, the defendant company brought out a  publication containing a number of the examination papers,  including three which had been set by two examiners  appointed by the University. The plaintiff company brought  a case of copyright infringement against the defendant  company.  It was argued that since the setting of the  papers entailed the exercise of brainwork, memory, and  trained judgment, and even the selection of passages from  other author\022s work involved careful consideration,  discretion and choice they constituted original literary  work. On the other and, the defendants claimed that what  they had done was fair dealing for the purposes of private  study which was permissible under the law.  The court  agreed that the material under consideration was a literary  work.  The words \021literary work\022 cover work which is  expressed in print or writing, irrespective of the question  whether the quality or style is high. The word ‘literary\022  seems to be used in a sense somewhat similar to the use of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 44 of 58  

the word \021literature\022 in political or electioneering  literature and refers to written or printed matter. With  respect to the originality issue, the Court held that the  term \021original\022 under the Act does not imply original or  novel form of ideas or inventive thought,  but the work  must not be copied from another work - that it should  originate from the author.  21.             In Kelly v. Morris,  (1866) LR 1 Eq. 697, School  of thought propounded is that, at least in respect of  compilations, only time and expenses are necessary which is  \023industrious collection\024.   The plaintiff was the owner and publisher of the first  directory.  The defendant came out with another directory.  The plaintiff sought an injunction against the defendant to  restrain the publication of the defendant\022s directory on  the allegations that the defendant was guilty of  appropriating the information contained in the plaintiff\022s  directory and obtained the benefit of many years of  incessant labour and expense. The defendant, on the other  hand, contended that there had been no unfair or improper  use of the plaintiff\022s work. Information which was given in  the plaintiff\022s directory was entitled to be used and  adopted as long as he did not servilely copy it.  The  defendant had bestowed his independent time, labour and  expense on the matter and thus had in no way infringed the  copyright of the plaintiff.   Granting injunction, the  Court held that in the case of a directory when there are  certain common objects of information which must, if  described correctly, be described in the same words, a  subsequent compiler is bound to set about doing for himself  that which the first compiler has done. In case of a road- book, he must count the milestones for himself. In the case  of a map of a newly discovered island he must go through  the whole process of triangulation just as if he had never  seen any former map, and, generally he is not entitled to  take one word of the information previously published  without independently working out the matter for himself,  so as to arrive at the same result from the same common  sources of information, and the only use that he can  legitimately make of a previous publication is to verify  his own calculations and results when obtained.   The  compiler of a directory or guidebook, containing  information derived from sources common to all, which must  of necessity be identical in all cases if correctly given,  is not entitled to spare himself the labour and expense of  original inquiry by adopting and re-publishing the  information contained in previous works on the same  subject. 22.             In the case of Parry v. Moring and Gollancz,  Cop  Cas (1901-1904) 49, the plaintiff, after obtaining  permission from the representatives of the owner of certain  letters, updated, chronologically arranged and translated  them into modern English for their inclusion in his book.  Later, the defendant published, as one of the series, an  edition of the letters prepared by the plaintiff. The  plaintiff, therefore, brought an action against the  defendant alleging infringement of his copyright.  The  plaintiff maintained his copyright in his version of the  text apart from the copyright in the text.  It was held  that there is copyright in the work of editing the text of  a non-copyright work. The editor of a non-copyright work is  not entitled to take the text from the edition of a rival  editor and use it as a copy for the purpose of his own  work. 23.             In Gopal Das v. Jagannath Prasad and Another, AIR

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 45 of 58  

1938 All. 266, the plaintiffs were the printers and  publishers of the books.  The book titled  \023Sachitra Bara  Kok Shastra\024 was printed for the first time in 1928 and had  run into four editions since. The defendants printed and  published another book titled \023Asli Sachitra Kok Shastra\024  in 1930.  The plaintiffs\022 case was that the book published  by the defendants was a colorable imitation of their book  and an infringement of plaintiffs\022 copyright.   It was held  by the Court that the plaintiffs compiled their book with  considerable labour from various sources and digested and  arranged the matter taken by them from other authors. The  defendant instead of taking the pains of searching into all  the common sources and obtaining his subject matter from  them, obtained the subject matter from the plaintiffs\022 book   and availed himself of the labour of the plaintiffs and  adopted their arrangement and subject matter and, thus,  such a use of plaintiffs\022 book could not be regarded as  legitimate.  It was held that a person whose work is  protected by copyright, if he has collected the material  with considerable labour, compiled from various sources of  work in itself not original, but which he has digested and  arranged, the defendant could not be permitted to compile  his work of like description, instead of taking the pains  of searching into all the common sources and obtaining the  subject-matter from them and to adopt his arrangement with  a slight degree of colourable variation thereby saving  pains and labour which the plaintiff has employed.  The act  of the defendant would be illegitimate use.  The Court held  that no one is entitled to avail himself of the previous  labour of another for the purpose of conveying to the  public the same information, although he may append  additional information to that already published. 24.             In V. Govindan v. E.M. Gopalakrishna Kone and  Another,  AIR 1955 Madras 391, the respondents had  published an English-English Tamil Dictionary in 1932. The  appellants were the publishers of similar Dictionary in  1947.  An action was brought regarding the publication and  sale of the dictionary by the appellants which was alleged  to be constituting an infringement of the respondents\022  copyright.    The lower court went through both the books  minutely and found, \023page after page, word after word,  slavishly copied, including the errors, and found the  sequence, the meanings, the arrangement and everything else  practically the same, except for some \021deliberate  differences\022 introduced here and there to cover up the  piracy\024.  The High Court referred to Copinger and James on  Law of Copyright   wherein the law has been neatly  summarized that : \023In the case of compilations such as  dictionaries, gazetteers, grammars, maps, arithmetics,  almanacs, encyclopaedias and guide books, new publications  dealing with similar subject-matter must of necessity  resemble existing publications, and the defence of \021common  source\022 is frequently made where the new publication is  alleged to constitute an infringement of an earlier one.\024   The Court held that in law books and in books as mentioned  above there is very little amount of originality but the  same is protected by law and \023no man is entitled to steal  or appropriate for himself the result of another\022s brain,  skill or labour even in such works.\024   The Court further  clarified that where there is a \021common source\022, the person  relying on it must prove that he actually went to the  common source from where he borrowed, employing his own  skill, labour and brains and that he did not merely copy.   25.             In C. Cunniah & Co. v Balraj & Co., AIR 1961  Madras 111, the appellant firm was carrying on the business

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 46 of 58  

in pictures, picture frames,  etc.  One Sri T.M.  Subramaniam drew a picture of Lord Balasubramanya and gave  it the title of Mayurapriya and a copyright was assigned to  the appellant.  It came to the knowledge of the appellant  firm that the respondent firm was printing and selling  copies of a close and colourable imitation of the  appellant\022s picture under the style of Bala Murugan. The  case of the defence was that their picture was an  independent production and that the appellant had not  acquired copyright in the picture and the subject dealt  with in that picture was a common subject, in which no  copyright could be acquired by anyone.  The Court held that  in order to obtain copyright production for literary,  domestic, musical and artistic works, the subject dealt  with need not to be original, nor the ideas expressed be  something novel. What is required is the expenditure of  original skill or labour in execution and not originality  of thought. 26.             In Agarwala Publishing House v. Board of High  School and Intermediate Education and Another,  AIR 1967  All. 91, a writ petition was filed by a publisher firm  challenging an amendment of the Regulations of the Board  declaring that copyright of the question papers set at all  examinations conducted by the Board shall vest in the Board  and forbidding the publication of such question papers  without the Board\022s permission.  The question involved in  the case was whether the question papers are ‘original  literary work\022 and come within the purview of Section 13 of  the Copyright Act, 1957.  It was urged that no copyright  can exist in examination papers because they are not  \021original literary work\022.   It was held that the \021original  literary works\022 referred to in Section 13 of the Copyright  Act, 1957, are not confined to the works of literature as  commonly understood.  It would include all works expressed  in writing, whether they have any literary merits or not.  This is clear from the definition given in Section 2(o) of  the Act which states that literary work includes tables and  compilations.   The Court further held that the word  \021original\022 used in Section 13 does not imply any  originality of ideas but merely means that the work in  question should not be copied from some other work but  should originate in the author, being the product of his  labour and skill.       27.             In the case of Gangavishnu Shrikisondas v.  Moreshvar Bapuji Hegishte and Others,  ILR 13 Bom 358, the  plaintiff, a book seller, in 1984 brought out a new and  annotated edition of a certain well-known Sanskrit work on  religious observances entitled \021Vrtraj,\022 having for that  purpose obtained the assistance of the pandits, who re-cast  and re-arranged the work, introduced various passages from  other old Sanskrit books on the same subject and added  footnotes.  Later on, the defendant printed and published  an edition of the same work, the text of which is identical  with that of the plaintiff\022s work, which moreover contained  the same additional pages and the same footnotes, at the  same places, with many slight differences.  The foundation  of both plaintiff\022s and defendant\022s books is an old  Sanskrit work on Hindu ceremonial, which could have been  published by anyone.  The copyright claimed by the  plaintiff was on the additions and alterations to the  original text, which the parties admit to be material and  valuable, and in which the copyright is claimed of its  prior publication.  The defendants argued that there was  nothing really original in the plaintiff\022s book and,  therefore, he was not entitled to copyright in the book.  

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 47 of 58  

It was held by the Court that a new arrangement  of old  matters will give a right to the protection afforded by the  law of copyright. If anyone by pains and labour collects  and reduces it as a systematic compilation in the form of a  book  it is original in the sense that that entitles the  plaintiff to the copyright.  The plaintiff worked for such  a new arrangement of old matters as to be an original work  and was entitled to the protection; and that as the  defendants had not gone to independent sources of the  material but had pirated the plaintiff\022s work, they were  restrained by injunction.     28.             In Rai Toys Industries and Others v. Munir  Printing Press, 1982 PTC 85, the plaintiff had published a  Tambola ticket book containing 1500 different tickets in  1929. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had  brought out another ticket book which the plaintiffs  claimed to have written in 1929 and registered as  copyright. The ticket book brought out by the defendants  was alleged to contain 600 different tickets and the same  had been copied identically from the books of the  plaintiff. On this basis, a suit for injunction and  rendition of account was filed by the plaintiff.  The  question before the court was whether the ticket-books in  the form of tables constitute literary work; and whether  copyright has been violated or not?  It was held by the  High Court that preparation of tickets and placing them in  tables required a good deal of skill and labour and would  thus satisfy the test of being original literary work. It  was recognized that the arrangement of numbers is  individual work of a person who prepares it; it bears his  individuality and long hours of labour. It is not  information which could be picked up by all and sundry. The  preparation of tickets is an individualized contribution  and the compilation eminently satisfies the test of being  an original literary work. Hence it was held to be a clear  case of copyright violation when the defendant decided to  pick and choose 600 tables on the sly and publish them as  his individual work.   29.             In Macmillan and Another v. Suresh Chandra Deb,  ILR 17 Cal 952, the plaintiffs were proprietors of the  copyright of a selection of songs and poems composed by  various authors, which was published in 1861.  In 1889, the  defendants published a book containing same selection of  poems and songs as was contained in plaintiffs\022 book,  the  arrangement, however, being different. The plaintiffs  claimed copyright in the selection made by them.  The  defendants, on the other hand, contended that there could  be no copyright in such selection.  The Court held that in  the case of works not original in the proper sense of the  term, but composed of, or compiled or prepared from  material which are open to all, the fact that one man has  produced such a work does not take away from any one else  the right to produce another work of the same kind, and in  doing so to use all the materials open to him. But, as the  law is concisely stated by Hall, V.C., in Hogg v Scott,  L.R. 18 Eq. 444, , \023the true principle in all these cases  is, that the defendant is not at liberty to use or avail  himself of the labour which the plaintiff has been at for  the purpose of producing his work, that is, in fact, merely  to take away the result of another man\022s labour, or, in  other words, his property.\024   It is enough to say that this  principle has been applied to maps, to road books, to guide  books, to compilations on scientific and other subjects.  This principle seems to be clearly applicable to the case  of a selection of a poem. It was held that for such a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 48 of 58  

selection as the plaintiff had made obviously required  extensive reading, careful studying and comparison and the  exercise of taste and judgment to make a selection for  himself.   But, if one spares himself this trouble and  adopts some other person\022s selection, he offends against  the principle. The Court was of the opinion that the  selection of poems made by the plaintiff and embodied in  the Golden Treasury was the subject of copyright and that  the defendant\022s book had infringed that right.        30.             These decisions are the authority on the  proposition that the work that has been originated from an  author and is more than a mere copy of the original work,  would be sufficient to generate copyright.  This approach  is consistent with the \023sweat of the brow\024  standards of  originality.  The creation of the work which has  resulted  from little bit of skill, labour and capital are sufficient  for a  copyright in derivative work of an author.   Decisions propounded a theory that an author deserves to  have his or her efforts in producing a work, rewarded.  The  work of an author need not be in an original form or novel  form, but it should not be copied from another\022s work, that  is, it should  originate from the author.  The originality  requirement in derivative work is that it should originate  from the author by application of substantial degree of  skill, industry or experience.  Precondition to copyright  is that work must be produced independently and not copied  from another person.  Where a compilation is produced from  the original work, the compilation is more than simply a  re-arranged copyright of original, which is often referred  to as skill, judgment and or labour or capital.  The  copyright has nothing to do with originality or literary  merit.  Copyrighted material is that what is created by the  author by his skill, labour and investment of capital,  maybe it is derivative work.  The courts have only to  evaluate whether derivative work is not the end-product of  skill, labour and capital which is trivial or negligible  but substantial.  The courts need not go into evaluation of  literary merit of derivative work or creativity aspect of  the same.  31.             Mr. P N Lekhi, learned senior counsel appearing  for the respondents in C.A. No. 6472/2004 has submitted  that the judgment of the court is a government work as  defined under Section 2(k)(iii) and on account of Section  17 (d), the Government in the absence of any agreement to  the contrary be the first owner of the copyright therein.    Section 52(1)(q)(iv) provides that the publication of any  judgment or order of a court, tribunal or other judicial  authority, unless the reproduction of publication of such  judgment or order is prohibited, would not constitute an  infringement of the copyright.  Therefore, publication of  the judgments of the apex court by the respondents  would  not tantamount to infringement of the copyright of the  appellants.  It is further urged that the judgments  published in the Supreme Court Cases is nothing but merely  a derivative work based upon the judgments of the court,  which lacks originality as it does not depict independent  creation even a modicum of creativity.  The inputs put by  the appellants is nothing but expressing an idea which can  be expressed in  a limited way and as such there cannot be  a copyright.  Filling the blanks or gaps by providing names  of the parties or citations of the judgments, both of which  are well known and unchangeable parts of that idea, are not  original work.  These are not creative at all to warrant  copyright protection, either singly or in combination.  The  additions made in the reported judgment by the editors of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 49 of 58  

the Supreme Court Cases are only the well known extensions  of the reported decision.  These extensions lack even the  minimal  degree of author\022s creativity or originality or  intellectual labour.  These additions do not create  additional knowledge, the protection of which is the very  basis of the copyright protection.   32.             It is submitted by Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, learned  counsel for the respondents in C.A. No. 6905/2004, that in  the present case, the journals of the appellants, including  SCC, are printed and published on the basis of  pre- existing judgments.  Journals are, therefore, a derivative  work.  There is a distinction between a ‘law report\022 as  understood in England and a ‘law journal\022 as printed in  India.  The appellants\022 journal ‘SCC\022 is not a law report  in the strict sense, inasmuch as the appellants\022 journal  reproduces the judgments of the court verbatim along with  inputs.  However, a law report known in the traditional  English sense is when a law reporter present in the court  would record in his own words and language the arguments of  the counsel on both sides, give a summary of the facts and  incorporate into the said report his transcript of the  speech of the Judge.  Thus, the appellants\022 work could only  be a law journal and not a law report.  The judgments were  specifically made a part of the exception to copyright  infringement and thus find place in Section 52(1)(q) of the  Act.  The underlying purpose is that it is in public  interest to place judgments in public domain.  The work for  which the copyright protection is claimed is a derivative  work.  For claiming protection of copyright in a derivative  work, under the Indian law originality is a pre-condition  and originality means only that the work was  independently  created by the author as opposed to copied from other  works, and that it possesses at least some minimal degree  of creativity.  There is a distinction between creation and  discovery.  The first person to find a particular fact has  not created the fact, he or she has merely  discovered its  existence.  Reporting of the judgments of the Supreme Court  with certain inputs could only be said to be a discovery of  facts already in existence.   Though for the purposes of  creativity neither novelty nor invention is requisite for  copyright protection, but at least some minimal creativity  is a must.  To create a copyright by alterations of the  text, these must be extensive and substantial practically  making a new version.  The English decisions relied upon by  the appellants would not apply to the facts of the present  case as all the said authorities are under the old 1842 Act  in U.K. wherein the word ‘original\022 was conspicuously  missing in the statute.   It is further urged that the  copy-editing inputs of the appellants are only  discoveries/facts and there are limited ways/unique of  expressing the various copy-editing inputs and thus no  copyright can subsist in such limited/unique expressions.   The facts which are discovered could be expressed in  limited ways and as such ways adopted cannot give copyright  protection to the inputs or the judgments as a whole.  It  is urged that recognizing the copyright in the copy-edited  version of the law reports would amount to giving the  appellants a monopoly in the judgments of the courts which  is against the intendment of Section 52(1)(q)(iv) and would  defeat the purpose of putting judgments in the public  domain.  It is submitted by the learned counsel for the  respondents that for a derivative work, the originality  test as applied in United States Supreme Court should be  made applicable whereby the author of a derivative work  would satisfy that the work has been produced from his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 50 of 58  

exercise of skill and judgment.  The exercise of skill and  judgment required to produce the work must not be so  trivial that it could be characterized  a purely mechanical  exercise. The work should be independently created by the  author as opposed to copied from the other works and that  it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.   The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the  respondents is considered hereinafter. 33.             In Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone  Service Co. Inc., 18 USPQ 2d. 1275, Rural Telephone Service  Co. publishes a typical telephone directory consisting of  white pages and yellow pages.  The white pages list in  alphabetical order the names of rural subscribers together  with their towns and telephone numbers.  The yellow pages  list Rural\022s business subscribers alphabetically by  category and feature classified advertisements of various  sizes. To obtain white pages listings for its area-wide  directory, Feist Publications Inc. approached different  telephone companies operating in North West Kansas and  offered to pay for the right to use their white pages  listings.  Of them, only Rural refused.   Unable to license  Rural\022s white pages listings, Feist used them without  Rural\022s consent.  Rural sued for copyright infringement in  the District Court taking the position that Feist, in  compiling its own directory, could not use the information  contained in Rural\022s white pages.  Rural asserted that  Feist\022s employees were obliged to travel door to door or  conduct a telephone survey to discover the same information  for themselves.  Feist responded that such efforts were  economically impractical and, in any event, unnecessary  because the information copied was beyond the scope of  copyright protection.   The United States Supreme Court  held that the sine qua non of copyright is originality.  To  qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original  to the author.  Original, as the term is used in copyright,  means only that the work was independently created by the  author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it  possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.  The  requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a  slight amount will suffice.  The vast majority of works  make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative  spark, no matter how crude, humble or obvious it might be.   Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be  original even though it closely resembles other works so  long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of  copying.  The Court further held that no one claim  originality as to the facts.  This is because facts do not  owe their origin to an act of authorship.  The distinction  is one between creation and discovery: the first person to  find and report a particular fact has not created the fact;  he or she has merely discovered its existence.   Factual  compilations, on the other hand, may possess the requisite  originality.  The compilation author typically chooses  which facts to include, in what order to place them, and  how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used  effectively by readers.  These choices as to selection and  arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the  compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity, are  sufficiently original.  Thus, if the compilation author  clothes facts with an original collocation of words, he or  she may be able to claim a copyright in this written  expression.  The Court goes on to hold that the primary  objective of copyright is not to reward the labour of  authors, but to promote the progress of science and useful  arts. To this end, copyright assures authors the right to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 51 of 58  

their original expression but encourages others to build  freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work.   Only the compiler\022s selection and arrangement may be  protected; however, the raw facts may be copied at will.   The Court rejected the doctrine of the \023sweat of the brow\024  as this doctrine had numerous flaws, the most glaring being  that it extended copyright protection in a compilation  beyond selection and arrangement \026 the compiler\022s original  contributions \026 to the facts themselves.  A subsequent  compiler was not entitled to take one word of information  previously published, but rather had to independently work  out the matter for himself, so as to arrive at the same  result from the same common sources of information.  \023Sweat  of the brow\024  courts  thereby eschewed the most fundamental  axiom of copyright law that no one may copyright facts or  ideas.  The \023sweat of the brow\024 doctrine  flouted basic  copyright principles and it creates a monopoly in public  domain materials without the necessary justification of  protecting and encouraging the creation of writings by  authors.        34.             The judgment in Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. v.  West Publishing Co., 158 F.3d 674 (2nd Cir. 1998), is of  United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, which  directly covers the reports of the judgments of the courts.   The facts involved in the case are that the West Publishing  Co. and West Publishing Corp. (\023West\024) obtain the text of  judicial opinions directly from courts.  It alters these  texts into (i) independently composed features, such as  syllabus, headnotes which summarize the specific points of  law recited in each opinion and key numbers which  categorize points of law into different legal topics and  sub-topics and (ii) additions of certain factual  information to the text of the opinions, including parallel  or alternative citations to cases, attorney information,  and data on subsequent procedural history.  West publishes  the case reports in different series of case reporters  collectively known  as \023National Reporter System\024.  Two  series of case reporters  at issue in that case were the  Supreme Court Reporter and the Federal Reporter.  HyperLaw  publishes and markets CD-ROMs which are compilations of the  Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals  that  cover approximately the same ground.  HyperLaw intends to  expand its CD-ROM product taking the material from the West  publications.  HyperLaw intervened and sought a judgment  declaring that the individual West case reports that are  left after redaction of the first category of alterations  do not contain copyrightable material.  It was held by the  Court that for copyright protection, the material does not  require novelty or invention, but minimal creativity is  required. All of West\022s alterations to judicial opinions  involve the addition and arrangement of facts, or the  rearrangement of data already included in the opinions,  and, therefore, any creativity in these elements of West\022s  case reports lies in West\022s selection and arrangement of  this information.  West\022s choices on selection and  arrangement can reasonably be viewed as obvious, typical  and lacking even minimal creativity.  Copyright protection  is unavailable for both derivative works and compilations  alike unless, when analysed as a whole, they display  sufficient originality so as to amount to an original work  of authorship.  Originality requires only that the author  makes the selection or arrangement independently and that  it displays some material with minimal level of creativity.   While a copy of something in the public domain will not, if  it be merely a copy, support a copyright, a distinguishable

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 52 of 58  

variation will.  To support a copyright there must be at  least some substantial variation, not merely a trivial  variation such as might occur in the translation to a  different medium.  Creativity in selection and arrangement,  therefore, is a function of (i) the total number of options  available, (ii) external factors that limit the viability  of certain options and render others non-creative, and  (iii) prior uses that render certain selections ‘garden  variety\022.        35.             In the case of Key Publications, Inc. v.  Chinatown Today Publishing Enterprises, Inc., 945 F.2d.509,  Key Publication published an Annual Classified Business  Directory for New York City\022s Chinese-American community.   In 1990, Galore Publication published the Galore Directory,  a classified directory for the New York Chinese American  community.  Key brought a suit against Galore Directory  charging that Galore Directory infringed Key\022s copyright in  the 1989-90 Key Directory.  The United States Court of  Appeal held that individual components of compilation are  generally within the public domain and thus available for  public.  There are three requirements for a compilation to  qualify for copyright protection : (1) the collection and  assembly of pre-existing data;  (2) selection, co- ordination or arrangement of the data;  and (3) the  resulting work that comes into being is original, by virtue  of the selection, coordination or arrangement of the data  contained in the work.  For originality, the work is  not  required to contain novelty.  The doctrine of \023sweat of the  brow\024, rewarded compilers for their efforts in collecting  facts with a de facto copyright to those facts and this  doctrine would prevent, preclude the author absolutely from  saving time and effort by referring to and relying upon  prior published material.  It extended copyright protection  in compilation beyond selection and arrangement - the  compiler\022s original contribution \026 to the facts themselves  drawn on \023sweat of the brow\024 is a copyright protection to  the facts discovered by the compiler.  The court discarded  \023sweat of the brow\024 notion of copyright law. 36.             In Macmillan and Company v. K. and J. Cooper,  1924 Privy Council 75, action was brought by McMillan and  Company to restrain the respondent-firm who was carrying on  the trade and business of publishers of educational books,  from printing, distributing or otherwise disposing of  copies of the book published by the appellants.  The ground  on which the relief was claimed was that the appellants had  a copyright in the book entitled \023Plutarch\022s Life of   Alexander, Sir Thomas North\022s Translation and that the  respondent published subsequently a book entitled  \023Plutarch\022s Life of Alexander the Great, North\022s  Translation\024, as it had infringed the copyright to which  the appellants were entitled in the earlier compilation.   The Court noted the contents of the book of the appellants  as also that of the respondent.  As per the Court, the text  of the appellants\022 book consisted of a number of detached  passages, selected from Sir Thomas North\022s translation,  words being in some instances introduced to knit the  passages together so that the text should as far as  possible, present the form of an unbroken narrative.  The  passages so selected were, in the original translation, by  no means contiguous.  Considerable printed matter in many  instances separated the one from the other.  The opinion of  the Privy Council was that for the work done by the  appellants, great knowledge, sound judgment, literary skill  or taste in the inputs brought to bear upon the translation  was not required, as the passages of the translation which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 53 of 58  

had been selected are reprinted in their original form, not  condensed, expanded, modified or reshaped to any extent  whatever.   The Court observed that the North\022s translation  of Plutarch\022s Life of Alexander does not and never did, as  the law stands, never can enjoy the protection of  copyright; and the questions which arise for decision must  be dealt with upon that assumption.  The Court said that in  all cases where the reprint with the text of it consisted  merely of a reprint of passages selected from the work of  any author, would never have a copyright.  There may be  cases where selecting and reprinting the passages would  require the appreciation upon what has been laid down or  established in the book and labour, accurate scientific  knowledge, sound judgment, touching the purpose for which  the selection is made, and literary skill would all be  needed to effect the object in view.   In such a case, the  copyright might well be acquired for the print of the  selected passages.  The Court said that it is the product  of the labour, skill and capital of one man which must not  be appropriated by another, not the elements, the raw  material, upon which the labour and skill and capital of  the first have been expended.  To secure copyright for this  product, it is necessary that the labour, skill and capital  expended should be sufficient to impart to the product some  quality or character which the raw material did not possess  and which differentiates the product from the raw material.   The Court approved the principles enunciated in the case of  University of London Press, Ltd. v. University Tutorial  Press, Ltd., [1916] 2 Ch. 601, dealing with the meaning of  the words ‘original literary work\022 that the original does  not mean expression of original or inventive thought.  The  Copyright Act is not concerned with the original ideas, but  with the expression of thought.  The originality which is  required relates to expression of thought and the Act does  not require that the expression must be in original or  novel form.  The work must not be copied from another work  \026 that it should originate from the author.  37.             The Supreme Court of Canada in the matter of CCH  Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 (1) SCR  339 (Canada) has noticed the competing views on the meaning  of ‘original\022 in copyright law wherein some courts have  held that a work which has originated from an author and is  more than a mere copy of a work, is sufficient to give  copyright.  This approach is held to be consistent with the  ‘sweat of the brow\022 or ‘industriousness\022 standard of  originality on the premise that an author deserves to have  his or her efforts in producing a work  rewarded.  Whereas  the other courts have held that a work must be creative to  be original and thus protected by the copyright Act, which  approach is consistent with a natural rights theory of  property law;  however, it is less absolute in that only  those works that are the product of creativity will be  rewarded with copyright protection and it was suggested in  those decisions that the creativity approach to originality  helps ensure that copyright protection is extended to the  expression of ideas as opposed to the underlying ideas or  facts.  The Court has also noticed that those cases which  had adopted the sweat of the brow approach to originality  should not be interpreted as concluding that labour, in and  of itself, would be a ground for finding of originality.   The question for consideration of the copyright has arisen  on the following fact foundation.  The appellant, Law  Society of Upper Canada, has maintained and operated the  Great Library at Osgoode Hall in Toranto, a reference and  research library.  The Great Library provides a request-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 54 of 58  

based photocopy service for Law Society members, the  judiciary and other authorized researchers.  Under the  custom photocopy service, legal materials are reproduced  and delivered to the requesters.  The Law Society also  maintains self-service photocopiers in the Great Library  for use by its patrons. The respondents, CCH Canadian Ltd.,  Thomson Canada Ltd. and Canada Law Book Inc. publish law  reports and other legal materials.  The law book publishers  commenced copyright infringement action against the Law  Society claiming ownership of copyright in 11 specific  works on the ground that the Law Society had infringed  copyright when the  Great Library reproduced a copy of each  of the works.  The publishers further sought permanent  injunction prohibiting the Law Society from reproducing  these 11 works as well as any other works that they  published.  The Law Society denied liability and submitted  that the copyright is not infringed when a single copy of a  reported decision, case summary, statute, regulation or a  limited selection of text from a treatise is made by the  Great Library staff or one of its patrons on a self-service  photocopier for the purpose of research.  The Court was  called upon to decide the question as to what shall be the  originality in the work of compilation. On consideration of   various cases, it was  held that to be original under the  Copyright Act the work must originate from an author, not  be copied from another work, and must be the product of an  author\022s exercise of skill and judgment.  The exercise of  skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be  so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely  mechanical exercise.  Creative works by definition are  original and are protected by copyright, but creativity is  not required in order to render a work original.  The  original work should be the product of an exercise of skill  and judgment and it is a workable yet fair standard.  The  sweat of the brow approach to originality is too low a  standard which shifts the balance of copyright protection  too far in favour of the owner\022s right,  and fails to allow  copyright to protect the public\022s interest in maximizing  the production and dissemination of intellectual works.  On  the other hand, the creativity standard of originality is  too high.  A creative standard implies that something must  be novel or non-obvious - concepts more properly associated  with patent law than copyright law.  By way of contrast, a  standard requiring the exercise of skill and judgment in  the production of a work avoids these difficulties and  provides a workable and appropriate standard for copyright  protection that is consistent with the policy of the  objectives of the Copyright Act.  Thus, the Canadian  Supreme Court is of the view that to claim copyright in a  compilation, the author must produce a material with  exercise of his skill and judgment which may not be  creativity in the sense that it is not novel or non- obvious, but at the same time it is not the product of  merely labour and capital.

38.             It is the admitted position that the reports in  the Supreme Court Cases (SCC) of the judgments of the  Supreme Court is a derivative work in public domain.  By  virtue of Section 52(1) of the Act, it is expressly  provided that certain acts enumerated therein shall not  constitute an infringement of copyright.  Sub-clause (iv)  of clause (q) of Section 52(1) excludes  the reproduction  or publication of any judgment or order of a Court,  Tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the  reproduction or publication of such judgment or order is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 55 of 58  

prohibited by the Court, the Tribunal or other judicial  authority from copyright.  The judicial pronouncements of  the Apex Court would be in the public domain and its  reproduction or publication would not infringe the  copyright.  That being the position, the copy-edited  judgments would not satisfy the copyright merely by  establishing amount of skill, labour and capital put in the  inputs of the copy-edited judgments and the original or  innovative thoughts for the creativity are completely  excluded.  Accordingly, original or innovative thoughts are  necessary to establish copyright in the author\022s work.  The  principle where there is common source the person relying  on it must prove that he actually went to the common source  from where he borrowed the material, employing his own  skill, labour and brain and he did not copy, would not  apply to the judgments of the courts because there is no  copyright in the judgments of the court, unless so made by  the court itself.  To secure a copyright for the judgments  delivered by the court, it is necessary that the labour,  skill and capital invested should be sufficient to  communicate or impart to the judgment printed in SCC some  quality or character which the original judgment does not  possess and which differentiates the original judgment from  the printed one.  The Copyright Act is not concerned with  the original idea but with the expression of thought.   Copyright has nothing to do with originality or literary  merit.  Copyrighted material is that what is created by the  author by his own skill, labour and investment of capital,  maybe it is a derivative work which gives a flavour of  creativity.  The copyright work which comes into being  should be original in the sense that by virtue of  selection, co-ordination or arrangement of pre-existing  data contained in the work, a work somewhat different in  character is produced by the author.  On the face of the  provisions of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, we think that  the principle laid down by the Canadian Court would be  applicable in copyright of the judgments of the Apex Court.   We make it clear that the decision of ours would be  confined to the judgments of the courts which are in the  public domain as by virtue of Section 52 of the Act there  is no copyright in the original text of the judgments.  To  claim copyright in a compilation, the author must produce  the material with exercise of his skill and judgment which  may not be creativity in the sense that it is novel or non- obvious, but at the same time it is not a product of merely  labour and capital.   The derivative work produced by the  author must have some distinguishable features and flavour  to raw text of the judgments delivered by the court.  The  trivial variation or inputs put in the judgment would not  satisfy the test of copyright of an author.   39.             On this touchstone, we shall take into  consideration the inputs put by the appellants in their  journal ‘SCC\022.  The appellants have added in the copy- edited version the cross-citations to the citation(s)  already given in the original text; added names of cases  and cross-citations where only the citation of the case is  given; added citation and cross-citations where only name  of the case is given; inserted citation in case history  where only the title and year of the impugned/earlier order  is given; presented in their own style the cases when they  are cited repeated in the judgment; provided precise  references to the quoted matter in the judgment by giving  exact page and paragraph number as in the original case  source/treatise/reference material;  added margin headings  to quoted extracts from statutes/rules, etc., when they are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 56 of 58  

missing from the original text of the judgment; added the  number of the Section/Rule/Article/paragraph to the extract  quoted in the original text; added the names of Judges on  whose behalf opinion given by giving expressions such as  \023for himself and Pathak, C.J.\024 etc.; done verification of  first word of the quoted extract and supplied emphasis on  such verification; added ellipsis \023\005\024 to indicate breaks in  quoted extract; provided and supplied the matter  inadvertently missed in quoted extracts in the original  text of the judgment; completed/corrected the    incomplete/incorrect case names or citations;  renumbered  correctly the clauses/sub-clauses in terms of the questions  framed which were numbered in terms of answers to questions  framed by learned Judge; changed the text as per corrigenda  issued, which has been issued upon SCC Editor\022s request and  suggestions; done compressing/simplification of information  relating to the case history; followed certain norms at SCC  for giving case names; omitted the words like \023Section\024,  \023Sec.\024, \023Rule\024, etc.  and given only the number of the  Section/rule at the beginning of the quoted extract; made  margin heading and the first clause/sub-section or initial  matter of section/rule etc. to run-on instead of being let  to start from a fresh line; done compressing of unquoted  referends and use of *** for parts;  replaced the series of  dots in the raw text with ellipsis; removed abbreviations  such as sec., R., cl.  and substituted them with full word,  i.e. Section, Rule, clause; added hyphenation after the  section/rule numbers which have alphabets suffixed to them;  applied indentation of quoted extracts; removed full stops  or word \023No.\024 ; and given full forms of abbreviations to  enhance readability and clarity.   In addition to the  above, capitalization and italicization is also made  wherever necessary in the raw text; and punctuation,  articles, spellings and compound words are also checked and  corrected, if required, in the original text.   40.             The aforesaid inputs put by the appellants in the  judgments would have had a copyright had we accepted the  principle that any one who by his or her own skill and  labour creates an original work of whatever character,  shall enjoy an exclusive right to copy that work and no one  else would be permitted to reap the crop what the copyright  owner had sown.  No doubt the appellants have collected the  material and improved the readability of the judgment by  putting inputs in the original text of the judgment by  considerable labour and arranged it in their own style, but  that does not give the flavour of minimum requirement of  creativity.  The exercise of the skill and judgment  required to produce the work is trivial and is on account  of the labour and the capital invested and could be  characterized as purely a work which has been brought about  by putting some amount of labour by the appellants.   Although for establishing a copyright, the creativity  standard applies is not that something must be novel or  non-obvious,  but some amount of creativity in the work to  claim a copyright is required.   It does require a minimal  degree of creativity.  Arrangement of the facts or data or  the case law is already included in the judgment of the  court.  Therefore, creativity of SCC would only be addition  of certain facts or material already published, case law  published in another law report and its own arrangement and  presentation of the judgment of the court in its own style  to make it more user- friendly.  The selection and  arrangement can be viewed as typical and at best result of  the labour, skill and investment of capital lacking even  minimal creativity.  It does not as a whole display

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 57 of 58  

sufficient originality so as to amount to an original work  of the author. To support copyright, there must be some  substantive variation and not merely a trivial variation,  not the variation of the type where limited ways/unique of  expression available and an author  selects one of them  which can be said to be a garden variety.  Novelty or  invention or innovative idea is not the requirement for  protection of  copyright but it does require minimal degree  of creativity.  In our view, the aforesaid inputs put by  the appellants in the copy-edited judgments do not touch  the standard of creativity required for the copyright. 41.             However, the inputs put in the original text by  the appellants in (i) segregating the existing paragraphs  in the original text by breaking them into separate  paragraphs; (ii) adding internal paragraph numbering within  a judgment  after providing uniform paragraph numbering to  the multiple judgments; and (iii) indicating in the  judgment the Judges who have dissented or concurred by  introducing the phrases like \021concurring\022, ‘partly  concurring\022, ‘partly dissenting\022, ‘dissenting\022,  ‘supplementing\022, ‘majority expressing no opinion\022, etc.,  have to be viewed in a different light.  The task of  paragraph numbering and internal referencing requires skill  and judgment in great measure.  The editor who inserts para  numbering must know how legal argumentation and legal  discourse is conducted and how a judgment of a court of law  must read.  Often legal arguments or conclusions are either  clubbed into one paragraph in the original judgment or  parts of the same argument are given in separate  paragraphs.  It requires judgment and the capacity for  discernment for determining whether to carve out a separate  paragraph from an existing paragraph in the original  judgment or to club together separate paragraphs in the  original judgment of the court.  Setting of paragraphs by  the appellants of their own in the judgment entailed the  exercise of the brain work, reading and understanding of  subject of disputes, different issues involved, statutory  provisions applicable and interpretation of the same and  then dividing them in different paragraphs so that chain of  thoughts and process of statement of facts and the  application of law relevant to the topic discussed is not  disturbed, would require full understanding of the entire  subject of the judgment.  Making paragraphs in a judgment  could not be called a mechanical process.  It requires  careful consideration, discernment and choice and thus it  can be called as a work of an author.  Creation of  paragraphs would obviously require extensive reading,  careful study of subject and the exercise of judgment to  make paragraph which has dealt with particular aspect of  the case, and separating intermixing of a different  subject.   Creation of paragraphs by separating them from  the passage would require knowledge, sound judgment and  legal skill.  In our opinion, this exercise and creation  thereof has a flavour of minimum amount of creativity. The  said principle would also apply when the editor has put an  input whereby different Judges\022 opinion has been shown to  have been dissenting or partly dissenting or concurring,  etc.  It also requires reading of the whole judgment and  understanding the questions involved and thereafter finding  out whether the Judges have disagreed or have the  dissenting opinion or they are partially disagreeing and  partially agreeing to the view on a particular law point or  even on facts.    In these inputs put in by the appellants  in the judgments reported in SCC, the appellants have a  copyright and nobody is permitted to utilize the same.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 58 of 58  

42.             For the reasons stated in the aforesaid  discussion, the appeals are partly allowed.  The High Court  has already granted interim relief to the plaintiff- appellants by directing that though the respondent- defendants shall be entitled to sell their CD-ROMS with the  text of the judgments of the Supreme Court along with their  own head notes, editorial notes, if any, they should not in  any way copy the head notes of the plaintiff-appellants;  and that the defendant-respondents shall also not copy the  footnotes and editorial notes appearing in the journal of  the plaintiff-appellants.  It is further directed by us  that the defendant-respondents shall not use the paragraphs  made by the appellants in their copy-edited version for  internal references and their editor\022s judgment regarding  the opinions expressed by the Judges by using phrases like  ‘concurring\022, ‘partly dissenting\022, etc. on the basis of  reported judgments in SCC. The judgment of the High Court  is modified to the extent that in addition to the interim  relief already granted by the High Court, we have granted  the above-mentioned additional relief to the appellants.  43.             In view of the decision rendered by us in the  civil appeals, we do not think it necessary to pass any  order on the contempt petition.  The contempt petition  stands disposed of accordingly.  44.             There shall be no order as to costs.