# EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS v. rD.B. MODAK & ANR

- **Citation:** [2007] 13 S.C.R. 182
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2007-12-12
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 6472 B of2004
- **Bench:** B.N. Agrawal, P.P. Naolekar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/eastern-book-company-ors-v-rd-b-modak-anr-22355
- **Pages:** 82

## Headnote

Indian Copyright Act, 1957,' Ss.2 (k), 13, 17 and 52:
..,,_
Copyright in Law Report- Publishing of copy edited version
c ofjudgments, order and proceedings of Supreme Court by appellant
- Copying by respondents - Claim of copyright in the publication/
published work - Held: Originaliiy in work is a requirement of
copyright - It is a right to stop others from exploiting the work of
owner without his consent - There is no copyright in the facts per
D se -All literary works have to be original/primary work for claiming
such protection - However, derivative/secondary work would qualifY
for claiming such protection provided skill, labour and capital
involved in its creation and creativity in the end product is such as
to create a new work so as to make the creator of derivative work
E author of it - The Courts have only to evaluate as to whether the
derivative work involved substantial amount of skill labour and
capital and need not to evaluate the creative aspect of the same -
Law Report of Supreme Court Judgments is derivative work -
Reproduction of judgments in public domain do not infringe the
F copyright - Innovative thoughts are necessary to establish copyright
in the judgments - Copy-edited judgments would not satisfY the
claim of copyright merely by establishing the amount of skill, labour
and capital put in the inputs of the copy edited judgments excluding
innovative thoughts for creativity - But it should be such and
G sufficient to import to the judgments printed, some quality which
original judgment does not possess and which differentiate the
original judgment from the one printed in the Report - Though
appellants improved the readability of judgment of the copy-edited
..
H
iudgment by doing considerable labour etc. but that does not meet
182
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v.
183
D.B. MOD AK & ANR.
the minimum requirement of creativity required for claiming A
copyright in it - However, creation of paragraph and classification
of opinion of judges would require extensive reading and careful
study of the subject- It also requires considerable knowledge, sound
iudgment and legal skill - Hence, appellants have copyright in it -
Respondents are directed not to use the paragraphs and B
classification of Judges' opinion as in the Report.
Copyright Act - Object and scope of - Dtscussed.
Principles:
Principle of copyright - Applicability of
Supreme Court Judgments - Owner of for the purpose of
copyright - Held: Government is the first owner of the copyright
in the judgment.
Words and Phrases:
'Copyright Protection' - Meaning of in the context of
Copyright Protection Act, 1957.
Literary works - Classification of
'Original work' and 'derivative work' -Meaning of
Appellant is the publisher of a law report publishing therein
c
D
E
orders, practice directions, record of proceedings, short judgments
and Judgments of the Supreme Court of India. After the initial F
procurement of the judgments, orders and proceedings for
publication from the Registrar, Supreme Court of India, the
appellants make copy-editing of the judgments, orders and record
of proceedings procured and various inputs are put in the
judgments and orders by making an addition of cross-references, G
formatting of the text, paragraph numbering, verification etc. to
make them user friendly. The appellants also prepare the
headnotes, which require considerable amount of skill, labour
and expertise. And for the said work a substantial amount of
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.
A capital expenditure on infrastructure, such as office equipments,
computers and for maintaining extensive library, besides recurring
expenditure on both the management of human resources and
infrastructural maintenance has been made by the appellants.
Appellants alleged that the Law Report, so prepared, constitutes
B an 'original literary work' in which copyright subsists in terms of
Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and thus the appellants
alone have the exclusive right to m2k

## Text

_Characters 0–39,882 of 165,654. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39882 for what follows._

A
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS.
v.
rD.B. MODAK & ANR.
'
DECEMBER 12, 2007
B
(B.N. AGRAWAL AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.)
Indian Copyright Act, 1957,' Ss.2 (k), 13, 17 and 52:
..,,_
Copyright in Law Report- Publishing of copy edited version
c ofjudgments, order and proceedings of Supreme Court by appellant
- Copying by respondents - Claim of copyright in the publication/
published work - Held: Originaliiy in work is a requirement of
copyright - It is a right to stop others from exploiting the work of
owner without his consent - There is no copyright in the facts per
D se -All literary works have to be original/primary work for claiming
such protection - However, derivative/secondary work would qualifY
for claiming such protection provided skill, labour and capital
involved in its creation and creativity in the end product is such as
to create a new work so as to make the creator of derivative work
E author of it - The Courts have only to evaluate as to whether the
derivative work involved substantial amount of skill labour and
capital and need not to evaluate the creative aspect of the same -
Law Report of Supreme Court Judgments is derivative work -
Reproduction of judgments in public domain do not infringe the
F copyright - Innovative thoughts are necessary to establish copyright
in the judgments - Copy-edited judgments would not satisfY the
claim of copyright merely by establishing the amount of skill, labour
and capital put in the inputs of the copy edited judgments excluding
innovative thoughts for creativity - But it should be such and
G sufficient to import to the judgments printed, some quality which
original judgment does not possess and which differentiate the
original judgment from the one printed in the Report - Though
appellants improved the readability of judgment of the copy-edited
..
H
iudgment by doing considerable labour etc. but that does not meet
182
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v.
183
D.B. MOD AK & ANR.
the minimum requirement of creativity required for claiming A
copyright in it - However, creation of paragraph and classification
of opinion of judges would require extensive reading and careful
study of the subject- It also requires considerable knowledge, sound
iudgment and legal skill - Hence, appellants have copyright in it -
Respondents are directed not to use the paragraphs and B
classification of Judges' opinion as in the Report.
Copyright Act - Object and scope of - Dtscussed.
Principles:
Principle of copyright - Applicability of
Supreme Court Judgments - Owner of for the purpose of
copyright - Held: Government is the first owner of the copyright
in the judgment.
Words and Phrases:
'Copyright Protection' - Meaning of in the context of
Copyright Protection Act, 1957.
Literary works - Classification of
'Original work' and 'derivative work' -Meaning of
Appellant is the publisher of a law report publishing therein
c
D
E
orders, practice directions, record of proceedings, short judgments
and Judgments of the Supreme Court of India. After the initial F
procurement of the judgments, orders and proceedings for
publication from the Registrar, Supreme Court of India, the
appellants make copy-editing of the judgments, orders and record
of proceedings procured and various inputs are put in the
judgments and orders by making an addition of cross-references, G
formatting of the text, paragraph numbering, verification etc. to
make them user friendly. The appellants also prepare the
headnotes, which require considerable amount of skill, labour
and expertise. And for the said work a substantial amount of
H
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.
A capital expenditure on infrastructure, such as office equipments,
computers and for maintaining extensive library, besides recurring
expenditure on both the management of human resources and
infrastructural maintenance has been made by the appellants.
Appellants alleged that the Law Report, so prepared, constitutes
B an 'original literary work' in which copyright subsists in terms of
Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and thus the appellants
alone have the exclusive right to m2ke 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
C paragraphs or portions of any volume of the Report by any other
person, is an infringement of the copyright in the Report within
the meaning of Section 51 oftheAct. Appellants further alleged
that respondent No. 2, another publisher, has brought out a
software called "Grand Jurix" published on CD-ROMs and the
D other respondent, also a publisher, has brought out software
package called "The Laws" published on CD-RO Ms; and that all
the modules in the respondents' software packages have already
been lifted verbatim from their work; copied the sequencing,
selection and arrangement of the cases coupled with the entire
E text of copy-edited judgments as published in the Law Report,
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
F of the appellants' exclusive right to the same. The appellants
moved the High Court for issuance of temporary injunction by
filing applications in the Suit against the respondents. Single Judge
of the High Court dismissed the applications for interim injunction.
However, before the Single Judge, the respondents conceded
G that the appellants have copyright in the headnotes and as such
they undertook not to copy these headnotes in their CD-RO Ms.
Aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge of the High Court
refusing to grant interim injunction, the appellants preferred
appeals before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and the
H applications praying for interim relief were also filed in both the
,_
J
y
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v.
185
D.B. MODAK&ANR.
appeals. The applications praying for the interim relief were A
disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court directing
that during pend ency of the appeals the respondents would be
entitled to sell their CD-RO Ms with the text of the judgment of
the Supreme Court along with their own headnotes which should
not in any way be a copy of the headnotes and the text of the B
plaintiff-appellants. Disposing of the matter, the Division Bench
of the Delhi High Court held that the appellants were 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 C
materially different from the original judgment; that 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
others have no right to take text of the judgment from the journal
where it is already reported; that the act of reproduction of any D
judgment or order of the Court, Tribunal or any other judicial
authority under Section 52(1 )( q) of the Copy Right Act, is not an
infringement of the copyright. Any person can, therefore, publish
judgments of the Courts, however, there would be copyright in the E
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's own creations and based on
publisher's own research and, thus, will have a copyright of the
appellants. Hence, the Division Bench modified the judgment of F
the Single Judge by allowing the respondents to sell their CDROMs with the text of the judgments of the Supreme Court along
with their own headnotes, editorial notes, if any, which should not
in any way be copy of the headnotes of the appellants. Thus, the
High Court has not accepted the case of the appellants that they G
have a copyright in the copy-edited judgments of the Supreme
Court. Hence the present appeals and the Contempt Petition.
In the present case, the questions which require
determination by the Court were as to what shall be the standard
H
186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.
A 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 as to whether the appellants
B would be entitled for a copyright as an original literary work in
the entire version of the copy-edited text of the judgments
published in the appellants' law report or as to whether the
appellants would be entitled to the copyright in some of the inputs
which have been put in the raw text.
c
Appellants contended that the copyright subsists as a law
report in their publication 'SCC' as a whole based cumulatively
and compendiously on all the substantial contributions of skill,
labour and capital in the creation of various parts of the Report;
D that the copyright subsists in the copy-edited version; that they
do not claim copyright in the raw text of the judgments, certified
copies of which are being obtained from the Registry; that they
do not claim a monopoly in publishing judgments of the Supreme
Court as they are being published by other publishers also without
E copying from each other publication; that their copyright is in the
copy-edited version of the text of judgments as published in sec
which is a creation of their skill, labour and capital and there are
contributions/inputs/ additions in creating the version of the text
of judgments as published in the report; that Section 52(1)(q)(iv)
F of the Act does not bar the recognization of copyright in the copyedited version of the text of judgments of the courts as published
in law reports; that 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
G 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
H
r
...
i
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v.
187
D.B. MODAK&ANR.
copy that person's version of the judgments, substantially or in its A
entirely; that 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; that the inputs put in the copyedited judgments in SCC, is a derivative literary work created B
from pre-existing material of the judgments ofthe court which is
in public domain; that the exercise of independent skill, labour
and capital in its creation by the author of such work, and the
derivative literary work so created is by their independent skill,
labour and capital, which gives them copyright in such creations; C
that it is not necessary that work created should have a literary
merit; that the courts can only evaluate whether the skill, labour
and capital actually employed, required in creating the work, is
not trivial or negligible; that in deciding whether a derivative
work qualifies for copyright protection, it must be considered as D
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; and that the respondents
if wish to reproduce or publish a work already in public domain E
was 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
created by them by their independent expenditure of skill, labour
and capital.
Respondent submitted that the judgment of the court is a
Government work as defined under Section 2(k)(iii) of the Act;
that on account of Section.17 ( d) of the Act, the Government in
the absence of any agreement to the contrary be the first owner
F
of the copyright therein; that in terms of Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of G
the Act, publication of the judgments of the apex court by the
respondents would not tantamount to infringement of the copyright
of the appellants; that the judgments published in the Supreme
Court Cases is nothing but merely a derivative work based upon
H
188
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.
A the judgments of the court, which lacks originality as it does not
depict independent creation even a modicum of creativity; that
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 in it; that filling the blanks or gaps by providing
B 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 to warrant copyright protection, either singly or in
combination; and that the additions made in the reported judgment
by the editors of the Report are only the well known extensions
C of the reported decision. These extensions lack even the minimal
degree of author's creativity or originality or intellectual labour
nor does it create additional knowledge, the protection of which
is the very basis of the copyright protection.
D
Respondents in the connected Civil Appeal submitted that
there is a distinction between a 'law report' as understood in
England and a 'law journal' as printed in India; thatthe appellants'
journal 'SCC' is not a law report in the strict sense, inasmuch as
it reproduces the judgments of the court verbatim along with
E 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
F appellants' work could only be a law journal and not a law report;
that the judgments were specifically made a part of the exception
to copyrigh1 infringement and thus find place in Section 52(1)(q)
of the Act; that for claiming protection of copyright in a derivative
work, under the Indian law originality is a pre-condition and
G 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; that reporting
of the judgments of the Supreme Court with certain inputs could
only be said to be a discovery of facts already in existence; that
H
I
:f-
'
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v.
189
D.B. MODAK&ANR.
to create a copyright by alterations of the text, these must be A
extensive and substantial practically making a· new version; 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; that the facts which are discovered B
could be expressed in limited ways and as such ways adopted
cannot give copyright protection to the inputs or the judgments as
a whole; 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 C
Section 52(1)(q)(iv) and would defeat the purpose of putting
judgments in the public domain; 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 bas been produced from his exercise of skill D
and judgment; and that 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 E
the other works and that it possesses at least some minimal degree
of creativity.
Partly allowing the appeals, and disposing of the Contempt
Petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The copyright protection finds its justification F
in fair play. When a person produces something with his skill
and labour, it normally belongs to him and the other person
w.ould not be permitted to make a profit out of the skill and
labour of the original author and it is for this reason the G
Copyright Act 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.
(Para - 8) (229-D-E-F]
H
190
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.
A
1.2. Copyright is a right 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
B 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
C created nor have they originated with the author of any work
which embodies these facts.
(Para - 8) (229-F-G-H; 230-A)
1.3. For copyright protection, all literary works have to be
original as per Section 13 of the Act. Broadly speaking, there
D would be two classes of literary works : (a) primary or prior
works: These are the literary works not based on existing subjectmatter 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
E existing subject-matter, they are called derivative work or
secondarywork. (Para-13)(234-F-G)
2. In many cases, a work is derived from an existing work.
Whether in such a derivative work, a new copyright work is
F 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
G 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 and
labour, and the creativity in the end-product is such as to create
H a new copyright work to make the creator of the derivative work
-~
,
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v.
191
D.B. MODAK&ANR.
-i
the author of it; and if not, there will be no new copyright work A
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. (Para -14) [235-G-H; 236-A-B-C]
B
3.1. 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 in terms of Section 2(k) of the Act. (Para - 13) [235-C-D] c
3.2. 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 D
i
owner thereof, namely, the Government, unless it is prohibited.
(Para -13) (235-E-F)
4.1. The reports in the Supreme Court Cases (SCC) of the
judgments of the Supreme Court is a derivative work in public E
domain. (Para-38) [257-H; 258-A]
4.2. 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 copyedited judgments would not satisfy the copyright merely by F
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's work. The principle where there is common source G
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. H
192
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.
A (Para - 38) [258-B-C-D-E]
4.3. 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
B printed in the Report, 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.
c 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
D data contained in the work, a work somewhat different in character
is produced by the author. On the face of the provisions of the
1957 Act, the principle laid down by the Canadian Court would be
applicable in copyright of the judgments of the Apex Court. It is
clarified that the decision of this Court would be confined to the
E 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. (Para - 38) [258-E-F-G-H; 259-A]
F
Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Inc., 18
USPQ 2d. 1275; Key Publications, Inc. v. Chinatown Today
Publishing Enterprises, Inc., 945 F.2d.509; Macmillan and
Company v. K. and J Cooper, 1924 Privy Council 75; CCH
Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 (1)
SCR 339 (Canada) - referred to.
G
5.1. No doubt the appellants have collected the material and
H
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
,,
I t
..,
\
/'
.. /
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v.
193
D.B.MODAK&ANR.
required to produce the work is trivial and is on account of the A
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 B
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 the Report, SCC, would only be addition of certain
facts or material already published, case law published in another c
law report and its own arrangement and presentation of the
judgment of the court in its own style to make it more userfriendly. The selection and arrangement can be viewed as typical
and at best result of the labour, skill and investment of capital
D
lacking even minimal creativity. It does not as a whole display
sufficient originality so as to amount to an original work of the
author. (Para-40) (260-E-F-G-H; 261-A-B]
5.2. Novelty or invention or innovative idea is not the
requirement for protection of copyright but it does require minimal E
degree of creativity. The inputs put by the appellants in the copyedited judgments do not touch the standard of creativity required
for the copyright. (Para- 40) [261-C-D]
5.3. The task of paragraph numbering and internal F
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 G
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 H
194
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.
A 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
B 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
C a work of an author. (Para - 41) [261-F-G-H; 262-A-B]
5.4. 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
D 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. This
exercise and creation thereof has a flavour of minimum amount
of creativity. The said principle would also apply when the editor
E has put an input whereby different Judges' 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
F 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 the Report, the
appellants have a copyright and nobody is permitted to utilize the
same. (Para - 41) (262-B-C-D-E]
G
6. The High Court has already granted interim relief to the
plaintiff-appellants. It is further directed that the defendantrespondents shall not use the paragraphs made by the appellants .
in their copy-edited version for internal references and their
H editor's judgment regarding the opinions expressed by the Judges
r-
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v.
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
195
by using phrases like 'concurring', 'partly dissenting', etc. on the A
basis of reported judgments in SCC. The judgment of the High
Court is modified to the extent that in addition to the inkrim
relief already granted by the High Court. (Para - 42) (262-F;
G-H; 263-A)
7. In view of the decision so rendered, it is not necessary to
pass any order on the contempt petition. The contempt petition
stands disposed of accordingly. (Para - 43) (263-B)
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6472
B
of2004.
C
From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.9.2002 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO (OS) No. 43 and 45/2001.
WITH
C.A. No. 6905 of2004 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 158 of
2006 in C.A. No. 6472 of2004.
D
Raju Ramachandran, Sudeep Mallik,Anitha Shenoy, Saurab Sinha,
RishadAhmad Chowdhury, Raj Shekhar Rao, M.R. Vij, Nitin Ramesh,
Samar Bansal, S.K. Mohanty, Lokesh Kumar, M.K. Garg, Pratibha M. E
Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Bishwajit Dubey, Shruti Kakker, Sumeet Bhatia
and Maninder Singh for the Appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P.P. NAOLEKAR, J. 1. These appeals by special leave have F
been preferred against the common judgment of a Division Bench of the
High Court ofDelhi involving the analogous question and are, therefore,
decided together by this judgment.
2. Appellant No. 1 - Eastern Book Company is a registered G
partnership firm carrying on the business of publishing law books.
Appellant No. 2-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 oflaw. One of the well-known publications of appellant No. 1 -
H
196
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [2007] 13(Addl.)S.C.R.
A Eastern Book Company is the law report "Supreme Court Cases"
(hereinafter called "SCC"). 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
B SCC was commenced in the year 1969 and has been in continuous
publication ever since. The name "Supreme Court Cases" 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
C 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
D 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,
E 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
F (plaintiffNo. 3 in the suits filed in the Delhi High 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
G office, equipment, computers and for maintaining extensive library, besides
recurring expenditure on both the management ofhuman resources and
infrastructirral maintenance, is made by the plaintiff-appellants. As per
the appellants, sec is a law report which carries case reports comprising
of the appellants' version or presentation of those judgments and
H orders of the Supreme Court after putting various inputs in the raw
' t
f
-'1
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v.
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
197
text and it constitutes an 'original literary work' of the appellants in A
which copyright subsists under Section 13 of the Copyright Act,
1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") 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 B
paragraphs or portions of any volume of sec by any other person,
is an infringement of the copyright in sec within the meaning of
Section 51 of the Act.
3. The defendant-respondent No. 2 Spectrum Business Support c
Ltd. (in Civil Appeal No. 6472/2004) has brought out a software
called "Grand Jurix" published on CD-ROMs and the defendantrespondent No. 2 Regent Data Tech Pvt. Ltd. (in Civil Appeal No.
6905/2004) has brought out software package called "The Laws"
published on CD-RO Ms. As per the appellants, all the modules in D
the defendant-respondents' software packages have been lifted
verbatim from the appellants' work; the respondents have copied the
appellants' sequencing, selection and arrangement of the cases
coupled with the entire text of copy-edited judgments as published
in the plaintiff-appellants' law report SCC, along with and including E
the style and formatting, the copy-editing paragraph numbers, footnote
numbers, cross-references, etc.; and such acts of the defendantrespondents constitute infringement of the plaintiff-appellants'
exclusive right to the same.
4. The plaintiff-appellants herein moved the Court for temporary
injunction by filing applications in Suit No. 7 5 8/2000 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.
F
The interim orders of injunction were passed in the suits from time to (i
time. However, the defendant-respondents filed application for vacation
of the stay order. By a common judgment dated 17. l.2001, the Single
Judge oftlie High Court dismissed the appellants' applications for interim
injunction and allowed the respondents' application for v~cation of stay.
H
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.
A 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-RO Ms.
5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 17.1.2001 refusing to grant
B 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
c entitled to sell their CD-RO Ms with the text of the judgment of the
Supreme Court along with their own head.notes 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
D 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
E 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 'original literary work'. If the right of a person like the
appellants who are merely reporting the judgments of the courts is
F stretched to this extent, then after a judgment is reported by a
r
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
G 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
H
--,
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v.
D.B. MODAK&ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
199
no right to take text of the judgment from the journal where it is A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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's own creations and
based on publisher's own research and thus will have a copyright of E
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. F
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.
7. The appellants have claimed that the copyright subsists in
sec as a law report as a whole based cumulatively and
compendiously on all the substantial contributions of skill, labour and
H
200
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.
A capital in the creation of various parts ofSCC, i.e., headnotes, editorial
notes, footnotes, the version of the copy-edited text of judgments as
published in the appellants' law report sec, the selection of cases
as published in sec, the sequence and arrangement of cases as
B
published in SCC and the index, table of cases, etc. which are
published in each volume ofSCC, 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,
c 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.