Written by Chandhana K U
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Chandhana K U is a law graduate and Advocate enrolled with the Kerala Bar Council. She holds a BA LL.B (Hons.) degree and has gained diverse exposure through internships and professional engagements across litigation, consumer law, administrative law, dispute resolution, data protection, and maritime law. She is currently pursuing an LL.M. in Commercial Law, with a keen interest in corporate and commercial legal practice, research, and emerging areas of law.
CITATIONS: AIR1987DELHI13, ILR1986DELHI191, AIR 1987 DELHI 13, (1987) 1 CURCC 256, (1986) 2 ARBI L.R. 151, (1986) 30 DLT 502, 1986 RAJLR 603
BENCH: Justice S.B. Wad
INTRODUCTION
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are the legal rights that arise from the intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary, and artistic fields. Among these, copyright law plays a crucial role in safeguarding the rights of authors, creators, and artists by protecting their original expressions fixed in a tangible medium, such as books, films, or music. Copyright is a bundle of exclusive rights given by the law to the creators of original works. It is a form of intellectual property protection granted by law. The rights provided under Copyright law include the rights of reproduction of the work, communication of the work to the public, adaptation of the work and translation of the work. The Copyright Act, 1957, which governs copyright protection in India, grants authors exclusive rights over their creations, including the right to adapt, reproduce, and control how their works are presented and shared with the public.
The case of Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.1 is a landmark judgment in the realm of copyright law in India. It touches upon the delicate balance between the rights of an author over her creative work and the rights of an assignee to adapt that work, especially in the context of literary works being transformed into cinematographic productions. The case raised significant questions about the moral rights of authors, particularly the right to prevent distortion or mutilation of their works that could harm their reputation. This case is pivotal in understanding the scope of an author’s control even after the assignment of rights and underscores the evolving interpretation of copyright law in India in the context of artistic integrity and authorship protection.
FACTS
The appellant in the instant case was Mannu Bhandari, a reputed and celebrated Hindi author who has contributed greatly to the field of Hindi literature. She entered into a contract with the respondents, Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd., and assigned her rights over her novel “Aap ka Bunty” to them for the purpose of producing a movie based on it. The respondents produced the movie “Samay ki Dhara” based on the novel. The appellant filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the respondents in the district court. She contended that the plot and story of her novel were heavily distorted and mutilated while producing the movie. Moreover, she was of an apprehension that the screening of the movie in the mutilated form would lower her reputation and portray her as a money-minded writer. However, the Additional District Judge was of the opinion that she did not run the risk of losing her reputation by the film’s screening, and denied her a permanent injunction against the respondents. As a result, she appealed before the Delhi High Court.
ISSUES
The court was called upon to adjudicate some important issues in the instant case, but the most important of them were regarding the interpretation of Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. Therefore, the issues are as follows:
- What is the scope of Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act 1957, and to what extent can the court exercise powers under the same?
- Whether the appellant can be restricted to those contractual terms which are contrary to Section 57?
- Where does the author’s freedom of expression end, and where does the Director’s begin?
RULES
Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957
REASONING OF THE COURT
The court mainly examined and elaborated upon the scope of Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act, 19572. It took into consideration the contract between the parties. The contractual clauses clearly established that the author had agreed to fully assign the rights of the novel for the purpose of producing a movie, in exchange for a certain sum of money. However, it was reasoned that as per Section 57 of the Copyright Act, authors had moral rights over their work, which were beyond any material gains. These moral rights were not limited to literary reproductions but also extended to the production of movies based on certain literature. Even if the author had fully assigned the copyright to the respondents, that does not take away from her the special right to object, if the plot of her novel was distorted while producing the film. The court observed that the words “even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright” in the section confirms this reasoning.
It was further explained that while reproducing a literary work into a movie, some modifications are inevitable and also permissible. However, the modifications in question must not mutilate, distort or completely change the plot of the literature. The court also observed why the contract between the parties could not be interpreted in favour of the respondents. The court said that any contract related to the assignment of literary copyrights had to be in consonance with Section 57, and in situations where both of these are contradicting to each other, importance would be given to special rights of authors under Section 57. It was also established that the court does not act as a defender of public morals or sentiments under Section 57. Instead, it ensures that any authorized reproduction of a copyrighted work remains authentic to its very core and keeps the main plot and idea of the work intact.
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
Novel of the Appellant, ‘Aap Ka Bunty’ is recognised by the public both nationally and internationally for its script, theme, dialogue, substance and the central idea. If a distorted version of her novel is allowed to be presented through the film, her admirers would conclude that she has fallen prey to big money and consented to mutilations and distortions of her novel and doubt her sincerity and commitment.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
By signing the contract of assignment, and receiving the full amount in consideration for assignment of rights, the Appellant had agreed to the modifications. Therefore, the Appellant cannot object to the modifications after the movie has been produced.
In case of a literary reproduction of the novel with impermissible changes, the publisher can be restrained. However, if a film is produced based on the novel, no restraint order can be passed.
JUDGMENT
After examining the facts and contentions of the parties, the court arrived at the conclusion that some scenes in the film should be modified and deleted before the screening so that the main plot remains intact. However, the parties arrived at a settlement before the court’s final order. It was agreed upon by the parties that the appellant’s and her novel’s name would be removed from the credits of the film, and would not be referred to in any manner during the screening and promotion. Consequently, the appellant could not claim any right to the film, and would not object to its screening and distribution. The appellant’s exclusive copyright over her novel was also recognized by the respondents.
CASE ANALYSIS
Section 57 – Author’s special rights.
[3(1) Independently of the authors copyright and even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright, the author of a work shall have the right–
(a) to claim authorship of the work; and
((b) to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act in relation to the said work4 if such distortion, mutilation, modification or other act would be prejudicial to his honour or reputation:
Provided that the author shall not have any right to restrain or claim damages in respect of any adaptation of a computer programme to which clause (aa) of sub-section (1) of section 52 applies.
Explanation.– Failure to display a work or to display it to the satisfaction of the author shall not be deemed to be an infringement of the rights conferred by this section.]
(2) The right conferred upon an author of a work by sub-section (1)5, may be exercised by the legal representatives of the author.
The relevance of this case lies in the fact that it was the first case that interpreted Section 57 of the Indian Copyright Act. Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides for authors ‘special rights. An author even after assignment either wholly or partially of its copyrighted work shall enjoy these special rights. These special rights include:
- The right to claim authorship of the work also known as the Right of paternity.
- To restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation, modification, or other act in relation to the authors work if such distortion, mutilation, modification is prejudicial to the authors honour or reputation, also known as the Right of integrity.
Although the court did not enforce its findings, the observations and reasoning in the judgment provide important insights to Section 57. Whenever an author produces a literary work, he invests not only his time and money into it but also a significant portion of his intellect and creativity. Trying to ascertain the value of a literary work solely in monetary terms is difficult. The soul of an author’s work lies in their moral rights, which allow them to preserve, protect and nurture their creations6. The privileges of an author extend beyond reproductions, assignments, and royalties. Moral rights place the author at a higher pedestal than these terms and offer comprehensive protection to their intellectual property. Generally, in situations when there is a contract between parties, the courts attempt to enforce the same.
However, in this case, the court interpreted Section 57 in wide terms, and the moral rights of the author prevailed over the contract. It can be reasonably inferred from the court’s approach that any kind of copyright assignment, whether full or partial, doesn’t put restriction on the author to demand modifications in the way their work is depicted. Another important aspect that has not been analysed in detail in the judgment is that of reputation. One of the primary contentions of the author was that if the movie was screened without modifications, she would appear as a money-minded cheap writer to her admirers, who had accepted the distortions in the novel’s plot for monetary benefits. Whenever an author writes literature, making money out of it is generally not the primary purpose.
Literary writing is a form of expression that requires creative impulses, keen observations, and a vivid imagination. It is because of these qualities that a literary work and the author earn reputation and acknowledgement. To put it simply, the most important asset of any author are not their material gains, but their readers. Whenever a literary work is produced into a movie, the readers of the work expect the movie and the characters portrayed to be in consonance with the plot. If this is not the case, it is considered that the author has compromised with the literature’s integrity for financial benefits.
Thus, Mannu Bhandari’s apprehension about the same was quite valid, and the court’s approach on this issue provides some guiding principles. Instead of mechanically resorting to the fixed contractual clauses, the court fulfilled its role under Section 57 and emphasised upon an authentic reproduction of the novel. The court also deliberated upon the issue of necessary modifications. In situations like the given case, when a literary work is produced into a movie, some changes and modifications are inevitable. It is highly uncharitable to expect a movie to verbatim follow the literary work on which it is based upon. However, there is a need to balance the moral rights of the authors with the interests of the producers.
The real question, therefore, is not whether modifications to a literary work while producing a movie are acceptable or not? Instead, the extent to which modifications are allowed has to be determined. As per the contract which was entered into by Mannu Bhandari and Kala Vikas Pictures Ltd., she had allowed the producers to make necessary modifications and changes. However, the court took into consideration the extent and nature of modifications. The modifications made to a literary work while producing a movie, should not be more than necessary. The author asserted that the movie “Samay ki Dhara” altered the plot of her novel, and heavily mutilated the depictions of the characters. It was observed that the modifications thus posed a risk of not only distorting the novel’s integrity but also impinged upon the author’s reputation. The producers’ right to make modifications extended only to the point of necessity, and the central theme, characters and idea of the novel had to be kept intact. Hence, the reasoning provided by the court is logically sound and also provides a balanced overview of the entire issue.
CONCLUSION
This judgment establishes certain principles that can facilitate in addressing issues of ambiguity and particularly in the context of reproduction of literary works. The liberal interpretation of Section 57 reaffirms the superiority of the author’s moral rights. The court has not only elaborated upon the relevance and importance of these rights, but has also authorized the creator’s privilege to protest against any unsuitable modification to their work. Overall, this judgment has put light on important issues of interpretation related to an author’s rights. It will continue to be a benchmark in the field of Indian copyright law.
REFERENCES
- Dr. B.L Wadehra, Law Relating to Intellectual Property, 307-308 (Lexis Nexis, Haryana, 5th edn., 2017)
- Sonia Baldia, Intellectual Property in Global Sourcing: The Art of Transfer, 38 GEO. J. INT’L. L. 499 (2007)
- Mira T Sundara Rajan, Moral Rights in the Public Domain: Copyright Matters in the Works of Indian National Poet C Subramania Bharati, SING. J.L.S.161, 175 (2001)
- Protection of ‘Moral Rights of Authors’. available at: https://ssrana.in/articles/protection-moral-right-author/ (last visited on 24 June 2025)
- Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Available at: https://www.theipmatters.com/post/mannu-bhandari-v-kala-vikas-pictures-pvt-ltd-and-anr (last visited on 24 June 2025)
- Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Available at: https://lawessential.com/ip-case-laws/f/mannu-bhandari-v-kala-vikas-pictures-pvt-ltd-and-anrair-1987?blogcategory=IP+-+Case+Laws (last visited on 24 June 2025)
- The Indian Copyright Act 1957 (Act 14 of 1957), s. 57
- AIR 1987 DELHI 13 ↩︎
- The Indian Copyright Act 1957 (Act 14 of 1957), s. 57
↩︎ - Subs. by Act 38 of 1994, s. 20, for sub-section (1) (w.e.f. 10-5-1995) ↩︎
- The words “which is done before the expiration of the term of copyright” omitted by Act 27 0f 2012, s. 36 (w.e.f. 21-6-2012) ↩︎
- The words “other than the right to claim authorship of the work” omitted by Act 27 of 2012, s. 36 (w.e.f. 21-6-2012). ↩︎
- Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India, (2015) SCC OnLine Del 209. ↩︎
