Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Plaintiffs claim that there can be a copyright even in the selection of cases, namely, which cases of the Supreme Court are to be reported in the journal. They also claim that their law reports are the result of addition/contribution of original material to a pre-existing work so that the end product is a transformation or adaptation of the pre-existing work. According to the plaintiff, a law report qualifies to be a compilation or data base. The plaintiffs allegedly select, collate, arrange and coordinate the numerous judgments pronounced by the Courts which effort requires tremendous input of skill, labour, discretion, judgment and expenditure. It is for this reason that the law reports, according to the plaintiff, qualify for copyright protection and the plaintiffs claim to be the owner of copyright in the law report SCC. It is contended that the plaintiffs go through an extensive process of selection, arrangement, collation and coordination in publishing SCC. They through their efforts impart a thin layer to the already existing work, which is capable of protection. According to the plaintiffs, under Section 2(o) of the Act, literary work includes computer programmes, tables and compilations including computer data base and in view of Section 13 of the Act subject to provisions of that Section and other provisions of the Act, copyright shall subsist throughout India in original literary work. Law reports, according to them, therefore, are original literary work in which plaintiffs have a copyright. It is submitted that by copy-editing the judgments, the plaintiffs impart the required level of original work to the judgments by virtue of which they acquire a thin layer of copyright in the end result due to the exercise of their skill, labour, discretion, expertise and expenditure. Original judgments, according to the plaintiffs, are carefully reviewed and at times provisions of law not mentioned therein are mentioned specifically in the head notes, individually or in combination with other provisions actually referred to. This, according to the plaintiffs, involves not only reviewing the judgment but also the actual statute to determine the relevant provisions that were applicable. Head notes are then prepared which are summary of the main finding of law in the particular case. Foot notes are added wherever required and short notes are added for ease of reference which summarise both the facts and the law laid down in the case. It is submitted that cross references and cross citations have been added for judgments relied upon, dissented from or distinguished by the Judge in his judgment. Typographical errors which appear in the official copy are corrected and appropriate corrigenda obtained from the Supreme Court. According to the plaintiff, the layout and pagination of the judgments reported by the plaintiff are totally different not only from the original judgment but also from the other law reports. According to the plaintiff, their editorial policy in terms of paraphrasing, abbreviations, addition of comments wherever appropriate or necessary, numbering of paragraphs, language of head notes and footnotes are strictly adhered to. The judgments/orders are stated to be arranged in a specific sequence as determined by the editors. Inclusion of a judgment in a particular volume is based on several factors including the topicality and importance of the judgment. As a result, a later judgment may be reported earlier and vice-versa. A specific style of expression that is now recognised as the plaintiffs house style is used to indicate whether the judgment was unanimous or whether there were separate concurring or dissenting judgments. A uniform style of giving the date is adopted in all volumes of the plaintiffs reports. The method of identification of quoted portions in a judgment are allegedly peculiar to the plaintiffs. The method of presentation is stated to be uniform. It is stated that the manuscripts are given three readings in each of which the raw sources are checked for spelling mistakes, grammatical/ typographical/ clerical errors. Statutory provisions are stated to be cross-checked and reference to citations is also scrutinised. The text is then allegedly standardised and formatted, head note is drafted by a team of editors, and the approved copy edited text is composed in the established format and the printouts are again proof read thrice. The proof read printouts are then compiled and collated and finally published in the form of weekly edition of SCC. All these features, according to the plaintiff, involve tremendous expenditure in terms of collection of judgments, selection of judgments, editorial skill, analysis, proof reading, drafting of head notes and foot notes. The plaintiffs thus allege that with all these efforts put in by the plaintiff, their work is original literary work in terms of Section 2(o) of the Act and is, therefore, entitled to protection under Sections 13, 14 and 17 of the Act.

24. In terms of Section 52(1)(q) of the Act, reproduction of a judgment of the Court is an exception to the infringement of the copyright. The orders and judgments of the Court are in the public domain and anyone can publish them. Not only that being a Government work, no copyright exists in these orders and judgments but no one can claim copyright in these judgments and orders of the Court merely on the ground that he had first published them in his book. If there are some typographical mistakes in a judgment or an order of the Court, can it be said that merely because the firs publisher of these judgments and orders has corrected those mistakes or has inserted certain commas or full stops and dates therein, a copyright will exist in the person who has corrected such mistakes in the judgment published by him? The answer, in my opinion, has to be in the negative. Changes consisting of elimination, changes of spelling, elimination or addition of quotations and corrections of typographical mistakes are trivial and hence no copyright exists therein.

40. Under Section 17 of the Act, author of a work shall be the owner of a copyright provided that in the case of a Government work, Government shall in the absence of any contract to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein. The act of reproduction of any judgment or order of the Court, Tribunal or any other judicial authority, under Section 52(q) of the Act, is not an infringement of the copyright. As already mentioned above, the judgment of the Court after it is delivered is available to any person on his being made an application to the Court for the purpose. The plaintiffs are admittedly not the authors of the judgments. The judgments are delivered by the Courts. Any person, therefore, can publish judgments of the Courts. The plaintiffs may have happened to have first published the judgments but the same will not mean that it can have a copyright therein. In my considered opinion, no person can claim copyright in the text of the judgment. Merely because the plaintiffs have made certain corrections in the judgments will not give them a right to claim copyright therein. What has been done by the plaintiffs is to correct the typographical mistakes in the judgments, insert commas and full stops wherever necessary and give paragraph numbers to the judgments. Almost all journals give their own paragraph numbers and paragraph numbers of the plaintiffs publication as well as the publication of other publishers are almost similar. Even if the paragraph numbers are different, it will not mean that the plaintiffs can claim copyright in the paragraphs or the mistakes which have been made in the judgments of the Courts which are in public domain. Nimmer on Copyright has observed that the changes consisting of elimination, changes of spelling, elimination or addition of quotations and corrections of typographical mistakes being trivial are not copyrightable. I am fully in agreement with the observations of Nimmer mentioned above. It is claimed by the plaintiffs that there is uniformity in style of writing and they have, therefore, a copyright in their style of writing. I am unable to agree with the plaintiffs. As already held, the judgments published in the journal of the plaintiffs are only reproduction of the judgments of the Courts with certain additions of commas, full stops, correction of errors, etc. in which, in my opinion, the plaintiffs cannot claim any copyright.

54. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that a copyright is a limited monopoly having its origin in protection. But there cannot be any monopoly in the subject matter which the author has borrowed from public domain. Others are at liberty to use the same material. Material in which no one has a copyright is available to all. Every man can take what is useful from them, improve, add and give to the public the whole comprising the original work with his additions and improvements. Under the guise of the copyright, the plaintiffs cannot ask the Court to restrain the defendants from making this material available to public. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the judgments/orders published by the plaintiffs in their law reports "Supreme Court Cases" is not their original literary work but has been composed of, compiled and prepared from and reproduction of the judgments of the Supreme Court of India, open to all. I am also of the opinion that merely by correcting certain typographical or grammatical mistakes in the raw source and by adding commas, full stops and by giving paragraph numbers to the judgment will not their work as the original literary work entitled to protection under the Copyright Act. Plaintiffs, therefore, have no copyright in the judgments published in their law reports. There being no copyright in the plaintiffs, there is no question of the defendant infringing any alleged copyright. Plaintiffs have failed to make out any prima-facie case in their favor and are, therefore, not entitled to any relief in the application.