EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. D.B. MODAK & ANR
Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 182
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: B.N. AGRAWAL, P.P. NAOLEKAR
Case summary
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. D.B. MODAK & ANR.pdf
Judgment text
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. rv. D. B. MODAK & ANR. ' DECEMBER 12, 2007 (B. N. AGRAWAL AND P. P. NAOLEKAR, JJ. ) Indian Copyright Act, 1957,' Ss. 2 (k), 13, 17 and 52: ..
,,_ Copyright in Law Report- Publishing ofcopy edited version ofjudgments, order andproceedings ofSupreme Court by appellant - Copying by respondents - Claim ofcopyright 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 se -All literary works have to be original/primary workfor claiming such protection - However, derivative/secondary work wouldqualifY 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 ofderivative work author ofit - 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 ofthe same - Law Report of Supreme Court Judgments is derivative work - Reproduction ofjudgments in public domain do not infringe the copyright - Innovative thoughts are necessary to establish copyright in the judgments - Copy-edited judgments would not satisfY the claim ofcopyright merely by establishing the amount ofskill, labour and capitalput in the inputs ofthe copy editedjudgments excluding innovative thoughts for creativity - But it should be such and 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 ofjudgment ofthe copy-edited iudgment by doing considerable labour etc. but that does not meet D. B. MODAK & ANR. the minimum requirement of creativity required for claiming copyright in it - However, creation ofparagraph and classification of opinion ofjudges would require extensive reading and careful study ofthe 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 classification ofJudges' opinion as in the Report. Copyright Act - Object and scope of- Dtscussed. Principles: Principle ofcopyright - Applicability of Supreme Court Judgments - Owner offor the purpose of copyright - Held: Government is the first owner ofthe 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 ofa law report publishing therein orders, practice directions, record ofproceedings, short judgments and Judgments of the Supreme Court of India. After the initial procurement of the judgments, orders and proceedings for publication from the Registrar, Supreme Court of India, the appellants make copy-editing ofthe judgments, orders and record of proceedings procured and various inputs are put in the judgments and orders by making an addition of cross-references, formatting ofthe 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 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 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 paragraphs or portions of any volume ofthe Report by any other person, is an infringement of the copyright in the Report within the meaning ofSection 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 other respondent, also a publisher, has brought out software package called "The Laws" published on CD-ROMs; 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 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 of the appellants' exclusive right to the same. The appellants J moved the High Court for issuance of temporary injunction by filing applications in the Suit against the respondents. Single Judge ofthe High Court dismissed the applications for interim injunction.
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. 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 ofthe Delhi High Court and the applications praying for interim relief were also filed in both the D. B. MODAK&ANR. appeals. The applications praying for the interim relief were disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court directing that during pendency of the appeals the respondents would be entitled to sell their CD-ROMs 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 plaintiff-appellants.
Disposing of the matter, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the appellants were not the y 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; 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 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 ofthe copyright. Any person can, therefore, publish judgments ofthe Courts, however, 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 the appellants. Hence, the Division Bench modified the judgment of the Single Judge by allowing the respondents to sell their CD- ROMs with the text of the judgments of the Supreme Court along with their own headnotes, editorial notes, ifany, 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 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 of originality in the copy-edited judgments ofthe 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 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.
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 ofvarious parts ofthe Report; that the copyright subsists in the copy-edited version; that they do not claim copyright in the raw text of the judgments, certified copies ofwhich are being obtained from the Registry; that they do not claim a monopoly in publishing judgments ofthe Supreme Court as they are being published by other publishers also without copying from each other publication; that their copyright is in the copy-edited version ofthe 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 ofjudgments as published in the report; that Section 52(1)(q)(iv) ofthe Act does not bar the recognization of copyright in the copy- r edited version ofthe text ofjudgments ofthe courts as published in law reports; that the Government is the first owner of copyright in the judgments ofthe 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 D. B. MODAK&ANR.
copy that person's version of the judgments, substantially or in its entirely; that Copyright subsists in the copy-edited version of the text ofjudgments 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 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; 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 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 ifwish to reproduce or publish a work already in public domain 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 ofskill, labour and capital.
i Respondent submitted that the judgment of the court is 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 of the copyright therein; that in terms of Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Act, publication of the judgments of the apex court by the respondents would not tantamount to infringement ofthe copyright of the appellants; that the judgments published in the Supreme Court Cases is nothing but merely a derivative work based upon I :f- the judgments ofthe 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 names of the parties or citations of the judgments, both ofwhich are well known and unchangeable parts ofthat 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 ofthe 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. 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 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' 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 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 ofthe judgments of the Supreme Court with certain inputs could only be said to be a discovery of facts already in existence; that D. B. MODAK&ANR.
to create a copyright by alterations of the text, these must be 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 ofexpressing the various copy-editing inputs and thus no copyright can subsist in such limited/unique expressions; that 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; that recognizing the copyright in the copy-edited version ofthe law reports would amount to giving the appellants a monopoly in the judgments ofthe courts which is against the intendment of 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 and judgment; and that the exercise ofskill 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. Partly allowing the appeals, and disposing of the Contempt Petition, the Court HELD: 1. 1. 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 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 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] 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 statute. One ofthe 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. (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 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 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 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 and 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 -~ , D. B. MODAK&ANR. the author of it; and ifnot, there will be no new copyright work -i 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 ofthe 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] 3. 1. In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the _, Government shall be the first owner of the copyright in the judgments ofthe Supreme Court, the same being a Government work in terms of Section 2(k) of the Act. (Para - 13) [235-C-D] 3. 2.
The judicial pronouncements ofthe Apex Court would be in the public domain and its reproduction or publication would not infringe the copyright. The reproduction or publication ofthe 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. i (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 domain. (Para-38) [257-H; 258-A] 4. 2. The judicial pronouncements ofthe 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 establishing amount ofskill, 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 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 ofthe courts because there is no copyright in the judgments of the court, unless so made by the court itself. (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 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 ofthought.
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 ofcapital, 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 ofselection, co-ordination or arrangement ofpre-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 1957Act, the principle laid down by the Canadian Court would be applicable in copyright ofthe judgments of the Apex Court. It is clarified that the decision ofthis Court would be confined to the judgments of the courts which are in the public domain as by virtue ofSection 52 ofthe Act there is no copyright in the original text of the judgments. (Para - 38) [258-E-F-G-H; 259-A] 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. andJ Cooper, 1924 Privy Council 75; CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 (1) SCR 339 (Canada) - referred to. 5. 1. No doubt the appellants have collected the material and improved the readability ofthe 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 ofminimum requirement ofcreativity. The exercise ofthe skill and judgment I t D. B. MODAK&ANR. 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 ofthe facts or data or the case law is already included in the judgment of the court. Therefore, creativity ofthe Report, 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 userfriendly. 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 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 degree ofcreativity. 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 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 ofa court of law must read. Often legal arguments or conclusions are either clubbed into one paragraph in the original judgment or parts ofthe 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 oftheir own in the judgment entailed the exercise of the brain work, reading and understanding of rsubject 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 offacts and the application of law relevant to the topic discussed is not disturbed, would require full understanding ofthe 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 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 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 ofcreativity. The said principle would also apply when the editor 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 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] 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 editor's judgment regarding the opinions expressed by the Judges by using phrases like 'concurring', 'partly dissenting', 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 inkrim relief already granted by the High Court. (Para - 42) (262-F; G-H; 263-A) 7. In view ofthe 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 of2004. From the final Judgment and Order dated 27. 9. 2002 ofthe High Court ofDelhi 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.
Raju Ramachandran, Sudeep Mallik,Anitha Shenoy, Saurab Sinha, RishadAhmad Chowdhury, Raj Shekhar Rao, M. R. Vij, Nitin Ramesh, SamarBansal, S. K. Mohanty, Lokesh Kumar, M. K. Garg, Pratibha M. Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Bishwajit Dubey, Shruti Kakker, Sumeet Bhatia and Maninder Singh for the Appearing parties. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by P. P. NAOLEKAR, J. 1. These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the commonjudgment ofa Division Benchofthe 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 partnership firm carrying on the business of publishing law books. Appellant No. 2- EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. is acompany incorporated and existing under the Companies Act, 1956. The said appellants are involved in the printing and publishing ofvarious books relating to the field oflaw. One ofthe well-known publications ofappellant No.
1- ' t 196 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [2007] 13(Addl. )S. C. R. Eastern Book Company is the law report "Supreme Court Cases" (hereinafter called "SCC"). The appellant publishes all reportable judgments along with non-reportablejudgments ofthe Supreme Court of India. Yet another category included in SCC is short judgments, orders, practice directions and record ofproceedings. The law report 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 andthey 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 ofthe Supreme Court, the copies ofjudgments, orders and proceedings are procured from the office ofthe Registrar ofthe Supreme Court ofIndia Afterthe initial procurementofthejudgments, orders and ,proceedings for publication, the appellants make copy-editing wherein thejudgments, orders and record ofproceedings 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 ofcross-references, standardization or formatting ofthe text, paragraphnumbering, verification and byputting other inputs. The appellants also prepare the headnotes comprising oftwo portions, the short note consisting ofcatch/lead words written in bold; and the long note, which is comprised ofa briefdiscussion ofthe facts and the relevant extracts from thejudgments and orders ofthe Court Headnotes are prepared by appellantNo.
3-SurendraMalik. As perthe said appellant (plaintiffNo. 3in the suits filed inthe Delhi High Court), the preparation f ofthe headnotes and putting the various inputs in the raw text ofthe judgments and orders received from the Supreme Court Registry require considerable amount ofskill, labour and expertise and for the said work substantial amount ofcapital expenditure onthe infrastructure, such as office, equipment, computers andfor 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 lawreportwhich carries case reports comprising of the appellants' version or presentation of those judgments and orders ofthe Supreme Court after putting various inputs in the raw text and it constitutes an 'original literary work' ofthe appellants in -'1 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 paragraphs or portions ofany volume of sec byany other person, is an infringement ofthe copyright in sec 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 "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-ROMs. As per the appellants, all the modules in 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 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 SuitNo. 758/2000 against Spectrum Business Support Ltd. and in Suit No. 624/2000 against Regent Data Tech Pvt. Ltd. before a learned Single Judge ofthe High Court ofDelhi.
The interim orders ofinjunction were passed in the suits from time to (i time. However, the defendant-respondents filed application for vacation ofthe stay order. By a common judgment dated 17. l. 2001, the Single Judge oftlie High Court dismissedthe appellants' applications for interim injunction and allowed the respondents' application for v~cation ofstay. 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 ofthe Delhi High Court and the applications praying for interim reliefwere 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 ofthe appeals the respondents will be entitled to sell their CD-ROMs with the text ofthe judgment ofthe Supreme Court along with their ownhead. notes which should not in any way be a copy ofthe headnotes and the text ofthe plaintiff-appellants. 6. The Division Bench ofthe 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 ofthejudgment. The Division Bench did not agree with the submission ofthe 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 'original literary work'.
Ifthe right ofa person like the appellants who are merely reporting the judgments ofthe courts is 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 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 ofthe judgment from the Registry ofthe 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 ofreproduction of any judgment or order ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe Division Bench that no person can claim copyright in the text ofthe judgment by merely putting certain inputs to make it user friendly. The appellants cannot claim copyright in the judgment ofthe 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 ofmaking headnotes would involve labour and skill; and that there is originality and creativity in preparation ofthe 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's own creations and based on publisher's 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 ofthe judgments ofthe Supreme Court along with there own headnotes, editorial notes, ifany, which should not in any way be copy of the headnotes ofthe 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 ofthe appellants that they have a copyright in the copy-edited judgments of the Supreme Court. Aggrieved by the decision ofthe Division Bench ofDelhi 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 ofskill, labour and capital in the creation ofvarious parts ofSCC, i. e. , headnotes, editorial notes, footnotes, the version ofthe copy-edited text ofjudgments as published in the appellants' law report sec, the selection ofcases as published in sec, the sequence and arrangement of cases as 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 ofthejudgments, certified copies of which are obtained from the Registry. The appellants do not claim a monopoly in publishing judgments ofthe 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 sec which is a creation ofthe appellants' skill, labour and capital and there are contributions/inputs/ additions • ofthe appellants in creating their version ofthe text ofjudgments 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 ofthejudgments received by them from the Registry. . The appellants assert that originality inheres in the following aspects ofits editorial process which are selected, coordinated and arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work ofthe appellants. r MATTERADDEDPERSETOTHERAWTEXTOFTHE 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":" I ' - Raw text obtained sec Page: Corresponding from Registry: citations from . SCC Page: R. Chitralakha and R. Chitralakha v. 388: AIR 1964 SC Anr. v. State of State ofMysore and 1823 Mysore &Ors. 1964 Triloki Nath v. State (1969) 1 SCR 103, (6) SCR 368 at 388 ofJ & K (II) and K. 105:AIR 1969SC1: and Triloki Nath v.
C. Vasanth Kumar (1970) 1 LLJ 629 J. & K State 1969 (1) v. State of SCR 103at105 and Karnataka. . 1985 Supp sec 714: K. C. Vasanth Kumar (1964) 6 SCR 368, 1985 Supp 1 SCR v. Karnataka 1985 352 Supp. (1) SCR 352 b. FCR, IA, Born LR citations added in addition to the AIR citation given in rawtext and cross-citations separated by":" Raw text obtained SCC Page: Corresponding from Registry: citations from sec Page: Dr Hori Ram Singh Hori Ram Singh AIR 1939 FC 43: vs. Emperor (Dr) v. Emperor, 1939 FCR 159 (AIR 1938 Gokulchand AIR 1948 PC 82: 75 FC 43), Dwarkadas IA30 Gokulchand Morarkav. Dwarkadas R. ,Shreekantiah AIR 1955 SC 287:. Morarka vs. The Ramayya 57BomLR632 King (AIR 1948 Munipalli v. State PC 82), ofBombay. Shreekantiah RamayyaMunipalli vs. State of Bombay (AIR 1955 SC 287) 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: "M. P.
Oil Extraction (P) Ltd. v. State ofM. P. " and Jab LJ crosscitation added to AIR citation already in raw text, and separated by":" - Raw text obtained sec Page: Corresponding from Registry: citations from sec Page: The said decision has The said decision AIR 1982 MP 1: been reported inAIR has been reported in 1982 Jab LJ 795 1982 M. P. 1. MP. Oil Extraction (P) Ltd. v. State ofMP. 2(b). Citations and cross-citations are added where only name of the case is given in the original text. For example Name ofcase in text replaced with full case reference and crosscitations added as per sec style. Raw text obtained sec Page: Corresponding ! from Registry: citations from sec Page: DivisionBenchofthis DivisionBenchofthis Kishan Lal Sharma v. Court in Kishan Lal Court in Kishan Lal Prem Kishore, AIR Sharma (supra). Sharma. 1983 Raj 100: 1983 Raj LR 164 d) Among the (d) Among the pensioners also, the pensioners also, the Janaki Prasad ' above anomaly will above anomaly will Parimoo v.
State ofJ prevail as pointed out prevail as pointed out & K, (1973) 1 sec in Janaki Prasad. in Janaki Prasad. 420 I. \ 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 '--------~~ Citation supplied by SCC 3. sec style of presenting (repeatedly) cited cases For example, Changes have been made in the name of the cited cases as per SCC style as "Rattan Singh's case (supra)"; "Mohilmmad's case (supra)" and "Range Forest Officer's case" in the raw text consecutively changed to "Ratan Singh case"; "Mohammedcase and "Range Forest Officer case" in SCC. Raw text obtained sec Page: from Registry: In Rattan Singh's case (supra), 140.
In Ratan Singh case the the High Court of Madhya High Court ofMadhya Pradesh Pradesh findingcertainillegalities finding certain illegalities in the in the prosecution relating to prosecution relating to setting setting aside aside In Mohammad's case (supra), 141. In Mohammed case, the the observation of the Kerela observations ofthe Kerela High HighCourtthat"ifaclearillegality Court that "ifaclear illegality or or injustice comes to the notice injustice comes to the notice of ofthe High Court the High Court In the third case relied on by 142. In the third case relied on Justice M. K. Chawla, namely, by Justice M. K. Chawla, namely, Range Forest Officer's case, a Range Forest Officer case a vehicle belonging to the vehicle belonging to the respondent was confiscated. 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 sec Page: from Registry: In Balaji it is stated: In Balaji it is stated: (SCR p. 458) "It seems fairly clear that the "It seems fairly clear that the backward clas. ses ofcitizens for backward classes ofcitizens for whom special provision whom special provision After referring to the provisions Afterreferring to the provisions ofArticles 338(3), 340 (1),341 ofArticles 338(3), 340(1), 341 and 342, the Court proceeded and 342, the Court proceeded r to hold as follows: to hold as follows: (SCRp. 458) "It would thus be seen that this "It would thus be s~n that this provision contempates that provision contemplates that some BackwardClasses may by some BackwardClasses mayby the Presidential order be the Presidential order be included. included It may be appropriate to quote It may be appropriate to quote the relevant holding from the the relevant holding from the judgment: judgment: (SCR pp. 467, 470) 1. "WhenArt.
15(4) refers to the "When Article 15(4) refers to special provision for the the special provision for the advancement ofcertain classes advancement ofcertain classes or scheduled castes or or Scheduled Castes and scheduled tribes, it must not be ScheduledTribes, it must not be ignoredthatthe provisionwhich ignoredthatthe provision which is authorised to be made is authorised to be made The Privy Council observed: "It The Privy Council observed: may be well to add that their (IA p. 302, para 17) Lordships judgment does not "It maybe well to add thattheir implythat every sumpaid llllder Lordships' judgment does not mistake is recoverable implythat every sum paid under mistake is recoverable *The changes have been highlighted b. The exactpage and paragraph number as inthe original treatises/ reference material is inserted. · Raw text obtained SCC Page: from Registry: is very instructive, is very instructive: (CAD, Vol. 7, pp.
701-02) "Supposing, for instance, reservations were made for a "Supposing, for instance, community or a collection of reservations were made for communities, the total ofwhich community or a collection of communities, the total ofwhich is a community which is is a community which is backward in the opinion ofthe backward in the opinion ofthe Government". Government". (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 ofthe Section have been supplied. Raw text obtained SCC Page: from Registry: deals with sovereignty over, and deals with sovereignty over, and limits of, territorial waters and limits of, territorial waters and says: says: "(l) The sovereignty ofIndia "3. Sovereignty over, and extends and has always limits of, territorial waters. extended to the territorial waters (!
) The sover-eignty of India ofIndia (hereinafter referred to extends and has always as the territorial waters) and to extended to the territorial waters the seabed and subsoil ofIndia (hereinafter referred to underlying, and the air space as the territorial waters) and to over such waters. the seabed and subsoil underlying, and the air space over such waters. It says: It says: "(l) All lands, minerals and "297. Things of value t other things ofvalue underlying within territorial waters or the ocean within the territorial continental shelf and waters, or the continental shelf, resources of the exclusive orthe exclusive economic zone, economic wne to vest in the ofIndia shall vest in the Union Union. - (1)All lands, minerals and be held for the purpose of and other things of value the Union. underlying the ocean within the territorial waters, or the continental shelf, orthe exclusive economic zone, oflndia shall vest in the Union and be held -1 for the purpose ofthe Union.
' That article reads as under: That Article reads as under: "19(1)All citiz. ens shall have the "19. Protection of certain right rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. - (1) All citizens shall have the right 6. Number ofthe 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 sec Page: from Registry: The said provision reads as The said provision reads as under: under: "Where a landlord has acquired "13. (3-A) where a landlord has his interest in the premises by acquired his interest in the transfer, no suit forthe recovery premises by transfer, no suit for ofpossession ofthe premises the recovery of possession of onanyofthe grounds mentioned the premises on any of the in clause (f) or clause (ff) of grounds mentioned in clause (f) or clause (ff) of The said sub-section reads as The said sub-section reads as under: under: "If, in the course of any trial "12.
(2) If, in the course of under thisAct ofany offence, it any trial under this Act of any is found that the accused person offence,itisfoundthattheaccused has committedany otheroffence personhas committed any other under this Act or any rule made offence underthisAct oranyrule thereunder or under any made thereunder or under any other law, other law, For convenie,nce, we reproduce For convenience, we reproduce the sub-section here: the sub-section here: "Any person who is a member "3. (5) Any person who is a ofaterrorists gang or aterrorists member ofa terrorists' gang or organization, which is aterrorists' organization, which J. S Sub-section (4) ofSection 3 of TADAreads thus: Sub-section (4) ofSection 3 of TADAreads thus: "whoeverharbours or conceals, or attempts to harbour or "3.
(4) Whoever harbours or conceal, any terrorist shall be conceals, or attempts to punish-able with imprisonment harbour or conceal, any for a term which shall not be terrorist shall be punish-able less than five years but with imprison-ment for a term which shall not be less than five years but Section 2 (1) (i) ofthe TADA . Section2(1)(i)ofTADAwhich which reads thus:- reads thus: "Words and expressions used "2. (1) (i) words and but not defined in this Act and expressionsused butnotdefined defined in the code shall have in this Act and defined in the the meanings respectively Code shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Code" respectively assignedto them in the Code" t Indian Penal Code by the following words in clause y of Indian Penal Code by the Section 2 ofthe Code: following words in clause 'y' of Section 2 ofthe Code: "words and expressions used herein and not defined but "2.
(y) words and defined inthe IndianPenal Code expressions used herein and not defined butdefined inthe Indian Penal Code 7. Phrases like 'concurring', 'partly concurring', 'partly dissenting', 'dissenting', 'supplementing', 'majority expressing 1 no opinion' etc. are added to the original text. For example, Words like 'partly dissenting' and 'partly concl! fling' have been added as per the application ofEditor'sjudgement regarding the opinions expressed by the Judges. Raw text obtained sec Page: from Registry: D. P. WadhwaJ D. P. WADHWA, J. - (partly concurring) I agree that the I agree that the appeal be appeal be dismissed. dismissed. However, I However, I p AGRAWAL, J. (partly S. C. AGRAWALJ. dissenting) - Special leave Special leave granted. granted. KOSHAL,J. Koshal, J. (partly dissenting) - On a perusal ofthe judgment On a perusal of the prepared by my learned brother, judgment prepared by my Krishna Iyer, J . , I agree learned brother, Krishna Iyer, J.
, respectfully with findings (2) to Iagree respectfullywithfindings (11), (13) and (14) enumerated (2) to (11), (13) and (14) by him enumerated by him 8. Judges on whose behalf opinion given: Expression such as "for himself and Pathak, C. J. ", or "Fazal Ali and Rangnath Mishra, JJ. " etc. are added to the original text. For example, A uniform style has been mentioned by SCC to take care of ! the fact that whichjudges have signed the Judgment. Raw text obtained sec Page: from Registry: RANGANATH MISRA, J. The Judgments of the Court were delivered by We have had the benefit RANGANATH MISRA, J. (for ofreading thejudgment passed himself and Pathak, C. J. ) RANGANATHAN, J. (concurring) The seeds ofthe present The Judgments of the Court controversy were sown as early were delivered by as in 1946. RANGANATHAN, J. (for himselfand 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 SCC Page: from Registry: t "but the risk involved in "but the risk involved in sacrificing efficiency of sacrificing efficiency of administration must always be administration must always be borne in mind when any State borne in mind when any State sets about making a provision sets about making a provision for reservation ofappointments for reservation ofappointments ofposts. " We see nojustification or posts. " (SCR p. 606) to multiply 'the risk', which 828. We see no would be the consequence of r holding that reservation can be justification to multiply 'the provided even in the matter of risk', which would be the · promotion. consequence of holding that reservation can be provided even in the matter ofpromotion.
weaker segments of We, the weaker segments of 'We, the people of India. No other people of India'. No other understanding can reconcile the understanding canreconcile the . claim of a radical present and claim of a radical present and hangover ofthe unjust past. "A hang-over ofthe unjust past. " similar view was . expressed in 833. A similar view was Vasant Kumar by Chinnappa expressed in Vasanth Kumar by Reddy, J. The learned Judge ChinnappaReddy, J. The learned said" the mere securing ofhigh Judgesaid(SCCp. 739,para36) marks atanexaminationmaynot necessarily mark out a good "[T]he mere securing of high administrator. marks at an examination may not necessarily mark out a good administrator. MATTER ADDED UPON VERIFICATION 10. Internal referenceing: Use ofparagaraph numbering for internal referencing within a judgment. For example, Internal paragraph numbering has been added after uniform paragraphnumberinghave beenprovidedto the multiplejudgments.
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 SCC Page: from Registry: (d) 'Creamy layer' can be, and (d) 'Creamy layer' can be, and must be excluded. (Para 86) must be excluded. (Paras 790- 793) (e) It is not correct to say that (e) It is not necessary for aclass the backward class, social, to be designated as a backward educational and economic class that it is situated similarly backwardness are closely inter- to the Scheduled Castes/ twined in the Indian context. Scheduled Tribes. (Paras 794 (Para 85) and 797) (f) The adequacy of (f) The adequacy of representation of a particular representation of a particular class in the services under the class in the services under the State is a matter within the State is a matter within the subjective satisfaction of the subjective satisfaction of the appropriate Government. The appropriate Government.
The judicial scrutiny inthat behalfis judicial scrutiny in that behalfis the same as in other matters the same as in other matters withinthe subjective satisfaction withinthe subjective satisfaction ofan authority. (Para 89) ofan authority. (Para 798) (4) (a) A backward class of (4) (a) A backward class of citizenscannotbe identified only citizenscannotbe identified only and exclusively with reference and exclusively with reference to economic criteria. (Para 90) to economic criteria. (Para 799) (b) It is, ofcourse, permissible (b) It is, ofcourse, permissible for the Government or other for the Government or other authority to identify a backward authority to identify abackward class ofcitizens on the basis of class ofcitizens on the basis of occupation-cum-income, occupation-cum-income, without reference to caste, ifit without reference to caste, ifit is so advised. (Para 91) is so advised.
(Para 800) (5) There is no constitutional bar (5) There is no constitutional bar to classify the backward classes to classify the backward classes of citizens into backward and of citizens into backward and more backward categories. more backward categories. (Para 92) (Para 801 to 803) 11. Verification offirst word of quoted extract and emphasis supplied on verification. For example, Raw text obtained sec Page: from Registry: The RajasthanHighCourtinCfJ' The RajasthanHighCourtinCIT v Rangnath Bangur opined: v. Rangnath Bangur opined: (p. 498) ".... that once a reassessment "[T]hat once a reassessment proceeding is initiated, the proceeding is initiated, the original order ofassessment is original order ofassessment is set aside or ceases to be set aside or ceases to be operative. The finality ofsuch operative. Thefinality ofsuch an assessment order is wiped an assessment order is wiped ..
out and a fresh order ofassess- out and a fresh order ofassessment would take the place of ment would take the place of and completely substitute the and completely substitute the -initial order ofassessment. It is, initial order ofassessment. It is, therefore, clear that when therefore, clear that when and said: and said: (p. 503) "reassessment procee-dings "[R]eassessment procee-dings cannotbe contained onlyto such cannot be confined only to such \ income which has escaped income which has escaped assessment, but the entire assessment, but the entire assessment assessment Five Judges: "the Constitution is the "[T}he Constitution is the fundamental lawofthe land and fundamental law of the land ) it is wholly unnecessary to and it is wholly unnecessary provide in any law made by the to provide in any law made by legislature that anything done in the legislature that anything disregard ofthe Constitution is done in disregard of the prohibited.
Such aprohibition Constitution is prohibited. is to be read in every Such aprohibition is to be read enactment. in every enactment. " (emphasis supplied) 12. Ellipsis"... " is added to indicate breaks in quoted extract. For example, Raw text obtained sec Page: from Registry: , he has said that "the word 165), he has said that 'caste' appearing after " ... the word 'caste' 'scheduled' isreallyamisnomer appearing after 'scheduled' is and has been used only for the really amisnomer and has been purpose ofidentifying this used only for the purpose of identifyingthis Gajendragadkar, J observed: Gajendragadkar, J. observed: "Though castes in relation to " ...
though castes in Hindus may be arelevant factor relation to Hindus may be a to consider in determining the relevant factor to consider in social backwardness ofgroups determining the social or classes ofcitizens, it cannot backwardness of groups or be the sole or the dominant test classes ofcitizens, it cannot be in that behalf" made the sole or the dominant test in that behalf. " manner as may be prescribed manner as may be prescribed duties ofexcise on all excisable duties ofexcise on all excisable goods which are produced or goods... which are produced or manufactured inIndia as, and at manufactured in ... Indiaas, and the rates, set forth in the at the rates, set forth in the Schedule to the Central Excise Schedule to the Central Excise TariffAct, 1985. TariffAct, 1985. 13. Matter inadvertently missed in quoted extracts is supplied. For example, Incorporation ofmatter missing in quotations from cases.
Raw text obtained · sec Page: from Registry: · Where there is no express Where there is no express exclusionthe examinationofthe exclusionthe examinationofthe remedies and the scheme ofthe remedies and the scheme ofthe particular Act to find out the particular Act to find out the intendment becomes necessary intendment becomes necessary to see if the statute creates a and the result of the inquiry special right or a liability and may be decisive. In the latter provides for the determination case ofthe right Mr Justice M. K. Chawla Mr Justice M. K. Chawla holding that parties have no holding that Mr. H. S. locus standi. Chowdhary and other intervening parties have no locus standi. "38. State to secure a social " 38. State to secure a social order for the promotion of order for the promotion of welfare ofthe people. (1) The welfare ofthe people.
- (1) The State shall strive to promote the State The State shall strive to welfare of the people by promote the welfare of the securing and protecting as people by securing and effectively as it may a social, protecting as effectively as it may economic and political, shall a social order in whichjustice, inform all the institutions ofthe social, economic and political, national life. shall inform all the institutions of the national life. The inputs ofefficiency include The inputs ofefficiency include a sense of belonging and of a sense of belonging and of accountability (not pejoratively accountability which springs in used) ifits composition takes in the bosom ofthe bureaucracy also the weaker segments ofwe, (not pejoratively used) if its the people oflndia. composition takes in also the weaker segments of 'We, the people oflndia'. "It is no doubt true that the Act "It is no doubt true that the Act was amended by U. P. Act 26 of was amended by U. P.
Act 26 of 1975 which came into force on 1975 which came into force on August 18, 1975 taking away August 18, 1975 taking away the power of the Director to the power of the Director to make an appointment under make an appointment under Section 16 F (4) of the Act in Section l6-F(4) of the Act in the case ofminority institutions. the case ofminority institutions. The amending Act did not, The amending Act did not, however, provide proceedings however, provide expressly that under Section 16 F ofthe Act. the amendment in question would apply to pending proceedings under Section 16- F ofthe Act. * The changes have been underlined. 14. Incomplete/incorrect case names or citations are completed/corrected. For example, Corrections in the case names. Raw text obtained sec Page: from Registry: In R v. Greater London Council 73. In R v. Greater London 1976 (3) ALL ER 184, one Council, ex parte Blackburn, Albert Raymond Blackbum one Albert Raymond Blackbum -, Ray, CJ. in State of Uttar 47.
Ray, CJ in State ofUP v. Pradesh v. Pradeep Tandon Pradfp Tandon has gone to the 7 and Ors. 1975 (2) SCR 761 at extent ofsaying that: (SCC pp. 766 has gone to the extent of 273~74, para 15) sayingthat: Reference may be made to (1) Reference may be made to :(1) Hindustan Zinc V. A. P State Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. A. P Electricity Board 1991 (3) State Electricity Board; (2) SCC 299; (2) Sitaram Sugars Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd V. Union ofIndia and Others v. Union of India; (3) Delhi 1990 (3) sec 223; (3) D. C. M Cloth and General Mills Ltd v. S. Paramjit Singh 1990 (4) v. S. Paramjit Singh; (4) SCC 723; (4) Minerva Talkies Minerva Talkies v. State of V. State of Karnataka and Karnataka; (5) State of Others 1988 Suppl SCC 176; Karnataka v. Ranganath (5) State of Karnataka V. Reddy; (6) Kerela State Ranganath Reddy 1978 (1) Electricity Board v. SCR 641; (6) Kera/a State S. N. Govinda Prabhu and Electricity Board V. S. N. Bros. ; (7) Prag Ice and Oil GovindPrabhu 1986 (4) SCC; Mills v.
Union of India; (8) (7) Prag Jee Company V. Saraswati Industries Union of India and Others Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of 1978 (2) sec 458; (8) India; (9) Murthy Match Sarawaswati Industries Works v. Assistant Collector, Syndicate Ltd. V. Union of Central Excise; (10) T India 1975 (1) SCR 956; (9) Govindaraja Mudaliar v. State Murti Match Works V. of TN. and (11) Narender Assistant Collector, Central Kumar v. Union ofIndia. Excise and Others 1974 (3) SCR 121; (10) T Govindraja * The changes have been Mudaliar V. State of Tamil underlined. Nadu and Others 1973 (3) SCR 222; and (11) Narender Kumar V. Union ofIndia and Others 1969 (2) SCR 375. \ \ ' 15. Other corrections For example, a. Clauses numbered in tenns ofanswers to questions framed by learned Judge have been renumbered correctly in tenns ofquestions framed, as (3)(e) actually has been found to be answer to (3) (c) and vice-versa. al. Similarly, clause has been changed to sub-clause.
Raw text obtained sec Page: from Registry: (c) It is not necessary for aclass (c) It is not correct to say that to be designated as a backward the backward class of citizen class that it is situated similarly contemplated in Article 16 (4) to the Schedule Castes/Tribes. is the same as the socially and (Paras 87 and 88) educa-tionally backward classes referred to inArticle 15(4). It is (d) 'Creamy layer' can be, and much wider. The accent in must be excluded. (Para. 86) Article 16(4) is on social (e) It is not correct to say that backwardness. Of course, the backward class of citizen social, educational and contemplated inArticle 16 (4) economic back-wardness are is the same as the socially and closely inter-twined inthe Indian educationally backward classes context. (Paras 786-789) referred to inArticle 15(4). Itis (d) 'Creamy Layer' can be, and much wider. The accent in must be excluded. (790-793) Article 16(4) is on social backwardness.
Of course, (e) It is not necessary for aclass social, educational and to be designated as a backward economic backwardness are class that it is situated similarly closely inter-twined inthe Indian to the Schedule Castes/ context. ScheduleTribes. (Paras 794 and 797) that no better fonnula could be that no better fonnula could be produced than the one that is produced than the one that is embodied in sub-clause (3) of embodied in clause (3) ofArticle Article 10 ofthe Constitution; I0 ofthe Constitution; they will theywill findthatthe viewofthose find that the view ofthose who who believe and hold that there believe and hold that there shall shall be be 16. Text has been changed as per corrigenda issued, which -, have been issued upon SCC Editor's request and suggestions. For example, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Corrigendum This Court's order dated October 25, 1996 in CA 14553/96@ SLP ©No. 5570193 in the matter ofSmt. Indira Sohan Lal (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Union oflndia 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's to refusal to advert to it, OTHER ADDITIONS/INSERTIONS MADE TO THE RAW TEXT 17. Compressing/simplification ofinformation relating to case history, For example u ,• Raw text obtained sec Page: from Registry: CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 999- CiviIAppealsNos. 999tol316 1005 OF 1997 of 1997 with I. A. No. 1 in C. As. arising out ofSLPs. (C) [ARISING OUT OF S. L. P. (C} Nos. 24224, 24285, 24315, NOS. 18380-86 OF 1996] 24320-22, 24325-26 and WITH 24328-29of1996, decided on CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1006- February 20, 1997. 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, 23196-97196, 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 WITII INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION N0. 1 IN CIVILAPPEALS [ARISING OUT OF S. L. P. (C)NOS:- 24224/96, 24285/ 96,24315/96,24320-22/96, 24325-26/96 & 24328-29/96. passed by Madhya Pradesh passed by Madhya Pradesh lligh Court respectively inMisc. High Court respectively in PetitionsNo. 1371 of1992M. P. Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. No. 1980of1992 and M. P. No. 1371, 1980and2315of1992. 2315 of1992. All the said Misc. All the said miscellaneous Petitions were filed before the petitions were filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 226 of the under Article 226 of the Constitution. 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 SCC Page: from Registry: Budh Prakash Jai Prakash v. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash v.
SalesTax Officer, Kanpur [1952 STO A. L. J. 332] Indian Aluminium Cables Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. Limited vs. State ofHaryana v. State ofHaryana Trilok Nath Tiku &Another v. Triloki Nath Tiku v. State ofJ State ofJammu &Kashmir and & K (1) j Others R. ChitralekhaandAnr. v. State R. Chitralekha v. State of of Mysore & Ors. 1964 (6) Mysore and Triloki Nath v. SCR 368 at 388 and Triloki State of J & K (II) and K. C Nath v. J & K State 1969 (1) Vasanth Kumar v. State of SCR 103 at 105 and K. C. Karnataka Vasanth Kumar v. Karnataka . : v 1985 Supp. (1) SCR 352 Minor P. Rajendran V. State of P Rajendran v. State of Madras & Ors. 1968 (2) SCR Madras 786 at 790 State ofAndhra Pradesh V. P. State ofA. P. v. P Sagar Sagar 1968 (3) SCR 595 K. S. Venkataraman and Bharat KS. Venkataramanan and Kala Bhandar Ltd. v. M. C. Bharat Kala Bhandar Ltd. v. Dhamangaon Municipal Committee 19. Words like "Section", Sec. ", "Rule" etc.
are omitted, and only the number ofthe Section/Rule is given at the beginning of the quoted extract. Raw text obtained sec Page: from Registry: "Sec 2 (h). "terrorist act" has "2 (h) 'terrorist act' has the the meaning assignedto itinsub- meaning assigned to it in subsection (1) ofSection 3, and the section (1) ofSection 3, and the •. expression "terrorist" shall be expression 'terrorist' shall be construed accordingly;" construed accordingly;" "Rule 11. No refund ofduties "11. No refund of duties or or charges erroneously paid, charges erroneously paid, unless claimed within three unless claimed within three months-No duties or charges months. -No duties or charges which have been paid or have which have been paid or have been adjusted in an account been adjusted in an account current maintained with the current maintained with the Collector Collector "RULE 233B. Procedure to be "23 3-B. Procedure to be followed to cases where duty is' followed in cases where duty paid under protest.
-(1) Where is paid under protest. - (1) an assessee desires to pay duty Where an assessee desires to under protest he shall deliver to pay duty under protest he shall the proper officer a letter to this 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 'run-on', instead of being let to start from a fresh line. Raw text obtained sec Page: from Registry: "Liability ofperson to whom "72. Liability of person to money is paid or thing whom money is paid or thing delivered by mistake orunder delivered, by mistake or under /'' · coercion- 72. A person to coercion. -Aperson to whom whom money has been paid, money has been paid, or or anything delivered, by anything delivered, by mistake mistake or under coercion, or under coercion, must repay must repay or return it. or return it. Sec 424. Refund of auto- "424. Refund of automobile mobile accessories tax. accessories tax.
- (a) No refund shall be made of any (a) No refund shall be made amount paid by or collected of any amount paid by or from any manufacturer, collected from any producer, or importer in respect manufacturer, producer, or importer in respect . Section 3, which is the 175. Section 3, which is the charging Section, reads:- charging section, reads: "3. Duties specified in the "3. Duties specified in the Schedule to the Central Schedule to the Central Excise Excise TariffAct, 1985 to be TariffAct, 1985 to be levied. levied. -(1) There shall be levied and collected in suchmanner as may (1) There shall be levied and be prescribed duties collected in such manner as may be prescribed duties 21. Compressing of unquoted referends and use of*** for such parts. + Raw text obtained sec Page: .... from Registry: 'six months', the words 'five 'six months', the words 'five years' were substituted. years' were substituted. Explanation Explanation.
- (ii)'relevant date- means, (1)-(2) * * * (a) in the case of excisable (3) (i) * * * ~ goods on which duty ofexcise (ii) 'relevant date' means, has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short- (a) in the case of excisable paid... goods on which duty ofexcise has not been levied or paid or (c) in any other case, the date has been sho1i-levied or shorton which the duty is to be paid paid... underthisAct or the rules made thereunder; (c) in any other case, the date .. on which the duty is to be paid underthisAct or the rules made thereunder,'' (i).................... (i)-(ii) * * * (ii).................... (iii) where the landlord ofany (iii) where the landlord ofany building isbuilding is (1) a serving or retired Indian ..
(1) a serving or retired Indian Soldier as defined in the Indian Soldier as defined in the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 (IV of1925), and such building (IV of 1925) and such building was let out at any time before . was let out at any time before his retirement, or his retirement, or (2) ,,/ . ··························· (2) * * * and such landlord needs such and s1. 1ch landlord needs such ... _ ~ building for occupation by building for occupation by himself or the members ofhis himselfor the members ofhis family for residential purposes, family for residential purposes, 22. Series of dots in the raw texts (i. e. , .............. ) are replaced with ellipsis (i. e. , ... ). Raw text obtained sec Page: from Registry: so to say into the so to say into the administration...... that no better administration ...
that no better formula could be produced than formula could beproduced than the one that is embodied in the one that is embodied in subclause (3) ofArticle 10 ofthe clause (3) ofArticle 10 ofthe Constitution; they will find that Constitution; they will find that the view ofthose who believe the view ofthose who believe and hold that there shall be and hold that there shall be equality ofopportunity has been equality ofopportunity, has been embodied in sub-clause (1) of embodied in sub-clause (1) of Article 10. It is a generic Article 10. It is a generic principle ......... Supposingfor principle ....
Supposing for instance, we are to concede in instance, we are to concede in full the demand of those full the demand of those communities who have notbeen communities who have notbeen so far employed in the public so far employed in the public servicestothe fullest extent, what servicestothe fullest extent, what would really happen is, we shall would really happen is, we shall be completelydestroyingthe first be completelydestroyingthe first proposition upon which we are proposition upon which we are all agreed, namely, that there all agreed, namely, that there shall be in an equality of shall be in an equality of opportunity...... . I am sure they opportunity.... I am sure they will agree that unless you use will agree that unless you use some such qualifying some such qualifying 23. Removal of abbreviations: sec. , R. and cl. are substituted respectively with "Section", "Rule" or "clause".
Raw text obtained SCC Page: from Registry: Having regard to the object and "Having regard to the object and language ofs. 34 ofthe I. T. Act, language of Section 34 of the 1922, s. 147 of the I. T. Act, I. T. Act, 1922, Section 147 of 1961, ands. 8ofthe SurtaxAct, the I. T. Act, 1961, and Section 1964, the reopening of an 8 ofthe Surtax Act, 1964, the assessment can only be for the reopening ofan assessment can benefit ofthe Revenue subject only be for the benefit of the to one exception, Revenue subject to one exception, " ...... it would not be in "... it would not be in accordance either with cl. (1) of accordance either with clause Art. 15 or cl. (2) ofArt. 29 to (1) of Article 15 or clause (2) require the consideration ofthe of Article 29 to require the castes ofpersons to be borne in consideration of the castes of mind for determining what are persons to be borne in mind for socially and educationally determining what are socially backward classes.
It is true that and educationally backward cl. (4)ofArt. 15containsanon- classes. It is true that clause (4) obstante clause with the result of Article 15 contains a nonobstante 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 sec Page: from Registry: SCOPE OF SECTIONS 1IB, Scope ofSections Jl-B, ll-D, 1lD, 12A, 12B, 12C AND 12-A, 12-B, 12-Cand12-Dof 12D OF THE CENTRAL The Central Excises and SaltAct, EXCISE ACT, 1944 1944 Sections l lB and llD in Sections 11-B and 11-D in Chapter II and Sections 12-A, Chapter II and Sections 12A, 12-B, 12-C and 12-D in 12B, 12C and 12D in Chapter Chapter II-A are now to be II-A are nowto be considered:considered: "11B. Claim for refund ofduty "llB. Claim for refund of (1)Any person claiming refund duty.
- (1)Any person claiming ofany duty ofexcise may make refund ofany duty ofexcise may an application for refund ofsuch make an application for refund duty to the Assistant of such duty to the Assistant CommissionerofCentral Excise Collector of Central Excise beforethe beforethe * The changes have been underlined. 25. Indentation For example SCC style ofpresentation ofquoted extracts in separate indented paragraphs applied to raw text. Raw text obtained sec Page: from Registry: As Chinnappa Reddy, J. in 57. As Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Vasanth Kumar has rightly Vasanth Kumar has rightly observed, "Always one hears observed: (SCC p. 739, para the word 'efficiency' as ifit is 36) sacrosanct and the sanctorum "Always one hears the word has to be fiercely guarded. 'efficiency' as ifit is sacrosanct 'Efficiency' isnotamantrawhich and the sanctorum has to be is whispered by ~1C Guru in the fiercely guarded. 'Efficiency' is Sishya's ear.
" not amantra which is whispered by the Guru in the Sishya's ear. " 26. Removal of full stops or removal of word "No. ". Raw text obtain. ~d SCC Page: from Registry: The appellant says that each of The appellant says that each of these R. S. Os. maintains an Qiese RSOs maintains an office, office, a stock yard and other a stock yard and other necessary paraphernalia for necessary paraphernalia for receiving, stocking, repairing and receiving, stocking, repairing and deliveringmotorvehicles to their deliveringmotorvehicles to their customers. The appellant says customers. The appellant says that almost seventy percent of almost seventy per cent of its its sales are to parties other than sales are parties other than State State Transport Undertakings Transport Undertakings S. T. Us. The sales to S. T. Us. , (STUs). The sales to STUs are are in the region ofthirty percent in the region ofthirty per cent of ofits production. The R. S. Os. , its production.
The RSOs, the the appellant says, contact the appellant says, contact the local local purchasers and the ST. Us. , purchasers and the STUs book book the order and also deliver the orders and also deliver the the vehicles to them pursuant to vehicles to them pursuant to sales sales effected by them. The effected by them. The appellant appellant always keeps the always keeps the RSOs well R. S. Os. well stocked having stocked having regard to their regard to their requirements. By requirements. By way· of way ofillustration, it is stated, the illustration, it is stated, the RSO R. S. O. at Hyderabad at Hyderabad All the three special leave 2. All the three special leave petitions namely S. L. P. (Civil) petititions namely SLP (Civil) No. 19279 of 1995, S. L. P. No. 19729of1995, SIP (Civil (Civil) No. 20137 ofl995 and ) No. 20137of1995 and SLP S. L. P. (Civil ) No. 19796 of (Civil) No. 19796of1995 are 1995 are directed against directed against common common judgment dated judgment r.
lated 9-5-1995 9. 5. 1995 * The chaeges have been i t underlme~~------------·-J 27. Giving full forms of abbreviations to enhance readability and clarity. . Raw text obtained SCC Page: from Registry: from legal consequences and from legal consequences and therefore, they are also guilty of therefore, they are also guilty of the offence u/s 201 IPC. the offence under Section 201 IPC. " * The changes have been underlined. In addition to the above, capitalization and