Praveena C·
General
··

Judiciary is not entitled to rewrite the statutory language: Supreme Court of India

Vismaya Shaji, is a final year B.A., LL.B (Hons) student at CSI College of Legal Studies, Kanakkary, Kottayam.

Table of contents

Introduction

Facts of the case

Observation by Madras High Court

Decision by the Supreme Court

Conclusion

On September 27th 2021 the Division Bench headed by the Hon’ble J. Dr. Chandrachud and J. B.V. Nagarathna held judgment for the Civil Appeal Nos. 5985-5987 of 2021 of the interim judgment of Madras High Court regards section 31D and rule 29(4)of the Copyright Act,2013.

INTRODUCTION :

The case begin with a petition filed in the province of Madras High Court which stated that certain provisions of the Copyright Act is contradictory to right provided under the Article 19.Thissaid case between Sa re gama Limited –  Appellant(s)and Next Radio Limited & Ors – Respondent(s).The issue here was related to the need of disclosing several details of board casting.

Judiciary is powerless to intervene into the domain of the Policy making by “re-writing the Statute, when the language of the Statute is clear and precise ”was the key-element in this case.

In this case learnt counsels Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Akhil Sibal appeared on the behalf of appellant(s) and Mr. Navroz Seervai and Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul on behalf of the Respondent(s).

FACTS OF THE CASE

This petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution here by challenging the validity of Rule 29(4) of The Copyright Rules 2013in the High Court of Madras. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court then passed an interim order on 2nd August 2021 in this case. In Madras High Court the questions that aroused were that whether the Rule 29(4) of the Rule violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution? and secondly, whether the Rule 29(4) of the Rule ultra vires Section 31D of the Act?

IN THIS CASE THE MADRAS HIGHCOURT OBSERVED THAT

“ Prima facie, there appears to be an element of unworkability about the Rule in that it may be seen to be almost claustrophobic in its operation and leaving very little room for flexibility. Indeed, the very concept of speaking or performing ad lib, which is the essence of spontaneity in any live speech or live performance, would be lost if pre-planned details, down to the every second of the programme must be disclosed as the impugned Rule may be read to imply. “

Thereafter the court stated this points:

  1. To not broadcast the copyrighted work without issuing a prior notice under Rule 29;
  2. Information like duration, time slots and the like; including the quantum of Royalty payable maybe furnished within 15 days of the broadcast;
  3. Compliance be affected with a modified regime of post facto, as opposed to prior compliance mandated by Rule 29(4).
  4. The Statutory mandate of a 24-hour prior notice shall be substituted by a provision for compliance within 15 days after the broadcasting.

Later the interim order passed by the Madras High Court was appealed before the Supreme Court.

THE SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE HELD THAT

Power of judicial review doesn’t mean that the Judiciary has the power to rewrite the statutory language. While examining the appeal Supreme Court pinpointed the indispensable effect of section 31D(1) that the broadcasting organization which desires to communicate the public regarding any published literary/musical/sound recording may do it after complying with the “said section”, therefore a prior notice in the prescribed manner stating the intention to broadcast the work, the duration and territorial scope of the broadcast is mandatory. This notice shall also contain the necessary details of payment made to the owner of the work.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court was of the view that what the High Court Of Madras has done is absolutely out of it’s premises. Then after the Apex Court stressed  on duty, power and responsibility of a court.

The act of Madras High Court to re-interpret the statute cannot be entertained. The court also clarified this by marking past cases in the courts were prevented from intervening in the process of law making. The power of judicial review cannot mean that the courts are also entrusted with the job of legislature.

 Therefore no Court shall go out of it’s purview whenever the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous.

REFERENCE

EDITOR

Praveena.c, member of LJRF Palakkad chapter. Graduated from Government Law College, Thrissur and done her Masters from Government Law College, Thrissur specialized in Administrative law and is also the editor of lawexams.co.in and ljrfvoice.

Related