2021 (9) TMI 1315 - SC - Indian Laws

Validity of Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules 2013 - copyrighted work may be broadcast in terms of Rule 29 without issuing a prior notice? - furnishing of details pertaining to the broadcast - Rule 29(4) has been challenged before the High Court on the ground that it (i) violates Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution; and (ii) is ultra vires Section 31D of the Act - HELD THAT - The court is entrusted by the Constitution of the power of judicial review. In the discharge of its mandate, the court may evaluate the validity of a legislation or rules made under it. A statute may be invalidated if is ultra vires constitutional guarantees or transgresses the legislative domain entrusted to the enacting legislature. Delegated legislation can, if it results in a constitutional infraction or is contrary to the ambit of the enacting statute be invalidated. However, the court in the exercise of judicial review cannot supplant the terms of the provision through judicial interpretation by re-writing statutory language. Draftsmanship is a function entrusted to the legislature. Craftsmanship on the judicial side cannot transgress into the legislative domain by re-writing the words of a statute - While the High Court has held the broadcasters down to the requirement of prior notice, it has modified the operation of Rule 29 by stipulating that the particulars which are to be furnished in the notice may be furnished within a period of fifteen days after the broadcast. The interim order converts the second proviso into a routine procedure instead of an exception (as the High Court has described its direction). This exercise by the High Court amounts to re-writing. Such an exercise of judicial redrafting of legislation or delegated legislation cannot be carried out. The High Court has done so at the interlocutory stage. An exercise of judicial re-drafting of Rule 29(4) was unwarranted, particularly at the interlocutory stage. The difficulties which have been expressed before the High Court by the broadcasters have warranted an early listing of the matter and this Court has been assured by the copyright owners that they would file their counter affidavits immediately so as to facilitate the expeditious disposal of the proceedings - Such an exercise was impermissible since it would substitute a statutory rule made in exercise of the power of delegated legislation with a new regime and provision which the High Court considers more practicable. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity and interpretation of Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules 2013.
2. The High Court's interim order modifying the compliance regime under Rule 29(4).
3. The High Court's authority to rewrite statutory rules at the interlocutory stage.
4. The balance between statutory requirements and practical difficulties faced by broadcasters.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Interpretation of Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules 2013:
The appeals arise from an interim order of the Madras High Court, which modified the compliance requirements under Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules 2013. Rule 29(4) mandates prior notice with specific details before broadcasting copyrighted works. The High Court's interim order permitted broadcasters to furnish these details within fifteen days post-broadcast, effectively altering the statutory requirement of a prior notice.

2. The High Court's Interim Order Modifying the Compliance Regime Under Rule 29(4):
The High Court's interim order directed that:
- No copyrighted work may be broadcast without prior notice.
- Details of the broadcast, including duration, time slots, and royalty payable, may be furnished within fifteen days post-broadcast.
- The interim order would apply only to the petitioners before the High Court and the copyrighted works of the second and third respondents.
The primary contention was that this order re-wrote Rule 29(4), which is framed under Section 31D and Section 78(2)(cD) of the Copyright Act 1957.

3. The High Court's Authority to Rewrite Statutory Rules at the Interlocutory Stage:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the judiciary cannot transgress into policy-making by rewriting statutes. The Constitution Bench in "In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of NI Act 1881" highlighted that judicial interpretation should not involve adding or omitting words from statutes. The High Court's modification of Rule 29(4) by allowing post facto compliance was seen as judicial overreach, which is impermissible.

4. The Balance Between Statutory Requirements and Practical Difficulties Faced by Broadcasters:
The broadcasters argued that Rule 29(4) was onerous and impractical, especially for dynamic and interactive broadcasting. They contended that Section 31D only requires prior notice of the intention to broadcast, stating the duration and territorial coverage, without the detailed conditions imposed by Rule 29(4). The Supreme Court acknowledged these practical difficulties but maintained that any modification of statutory rules should be through legislative amendment, not judicial intervention.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the interim order of the High Court, stating that judicial re-drafting of Rule 29(4) was unwarranted, particularly at the interlocutory stage. The Court emphasized that the judiciary's role is to interpret and apply the law, not to change it. The appeals were allowed, and the interim order was set aside, with the clarification that the Supreme Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the pending writ petitions before the High Court.