oppn parties Supreme Court Judgments: Not Protected by Copyright

News Snippets

  • The home ministry has notified 50% constable-level jobs in BSF for direct recruitment for ex-Agniveers
  • Supreme Court said that if an accused or even a convict obtains a NOC from the concerned court with the rider that permission would be needed to go abroad, the government cannot obstruct renewal of their passport
  • Supreme Court said that criminal record and gravity of offence play a big part in bail decisions while quashing the bail of 5 habitual offenders
  • PM Modi visits Bengal, fails to holds a rally in Matua heartland of Nadia after dense fog prevents landing of his helicopter but addresses the crowd virtually from Kolkata aiprort
  • Government firm on sim-linking for web access to messaging apps, but may increase the auto logout time from 6 hours to 12-18 hours
  • Mizoram-New Delhi Rajdhani Express hits an elephant herd in Assam, killing seven elephants including four calves
  • Indian women take on Sri Lanka is the first match of the T20 series at Visakhapatnam today
  • U19 Asia Cup: India take on Pakistan today for the crown
  • In a surprisng move, the selectors dropped Shubman Gill from the T20 World Cup squad and made Axar Patel the vice-captain. Jitesh Sharma was also dropped to make way for Ishan Kishan as he was performing well and Rinku Singh earned a spot for his finishing abilities
  • Opposition parties, chiefly the Congress and TMC, say that changing the name of the rural employment guarantee scheme is an insult to the memory of Mahatma Gandhi
  • Commerce secreatary Rajesh Agarwal said that the latest data shows that exporters are diversifying
  • Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman said that if India were a 'dead economy' as claimed by opposition parties, India's rating would not have been upgraded
  • The Insurance Bill, to be tabled in Parliament, will give more teeth to the regulator and allow 100% FDI
  • Nitin Nabin took charge as the national working president of the BJP
  • Division in opposition ranks as J&K chief minister Omar Abdullah distances the INDIA bloc from vote chori and SIR pitch of the Congress
U19 World Cup - Pakistan thrash India by 192 runs ////// Shubman Gill dropped from T20 World Cup squad, Axar Patel replaces him as vice-captain
oppn parties
Supreme Court Judgments: Not Protected by Copyright

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2016-12-07 12:29:46

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.
Judgments delivered by the Supreme Court have wide legal ramifications. Hence, they need to be widely circulated among lawyers, academicians, law students and other interested persons. With the advent of the internet and several legal websites, access to these judgments has become easier. The Supreme Court itself has a Judgment Information System (JIS) where each judgment is posted and can be searched though various parameters. But when it comes to hard copy, a few firms have been traditionally taking out publications reporting these judgments as Supreme Court Cases (SCC). These publishing houses employ editors who classify the judgments according to the verdict given by the court. There is other editorial work in the form of references, clarifications and explanations. But can such publishing houses claim copyright over the judgments and the editorial input and prevent others from reproducing the material?

Eastern Book Company has been publishing SCC’s in book form for a long time. They had got a ad interim injunction order from the District Judge, Lucknow to restrain Reed Elsevier India Pvt. Ltd. from reproducing content from their books, which they claimed were literary works and hence protected by copyright. The Allahabad High Court subsequently upheld the same. Aggrieved by this, Reed Elsevier approached the Supreme Court.

A Supreme Court bench of Justice Ranjan Gogoi and N V Ramana has recently ruled that Supreme Court judgments are not bound by copyright and everyone has the right to reproduce them (if they are put out as reportable by the court) and comment on them.

The court agreed with the counsel of Reed Elsevier that terms like “concurring”, “partly concurring”, “dissenting” etc. are generic terms commonly used in legal parlance and no one claim copyright over such assessment of court judgments. Also, a publishing house using Supreme Court judgments, whether raw or editorially enhanced, cannot claim such work to be literary work protected by copyright. The court allowed Reed Elsevier to reproduce the judgments.