MEDIA LAW

TOPIC : MEDIA -LAW

Meaning of Media :
The main means of mass communication (broadcasting, publishing, and the internet) regarded
collectively.

What Does Media Mean?

Media, the plural of medium, broadly describes all channels of communication, including everything
from printed paper to digital media. Media comprises news, art, educational content, and any form
of information that can reach or influence people, including television, radio, books, magazines, and
the internet.

Meaning of law
the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as
regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the
imposition of penalties.

Definition of media law

Media law is a branch of law that regulates the telecommunications, broadcasting, advertising, and
entertainment industry. It applies to television, radio print media, and more recently, social and
digital media. This legal sector can cover censorship ,intellectual property and information
technology. Media law practice encompasses all legal issues that may arise during the production or
consumption of various forms of media.

Use of Media law

Media law is the body of law that regulates the production and use of media.media law can
apply to a wide varitey of media types,including broadcasting television,the internet and
print media.media law encomposess all legal issues that may arise during the production
and consumption various forms of media.

In brief : media law and regulation in india

Summarise the regulatory framework for the media sector in your jurisdiction.
The Media Entertainment (M&E) industry in India can be broadly classified into print, cinematograph
films, broadcasting, and digital media. Each of these categories is regulated by the Ministry of
Information and Broadcasting (MIB), assisted and supported in its activities by subordinate
organisations, autonomous organisations, statutory bodies, and public sector undertakings. Given
that digital media involves information technology platforms, digital media is also partially regulated by
the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY). Further, the Telecom Regulatory
Authority of India (TRAI) has a dedicated broadcasting and cable services division, which is
responsible for laying down the overall regulatory framework for the broadcasting and cable TV sector
in relation to the interconnection, quality of service, and tariff aspects.

Print
 MEDIA LAW

The MIB (Information Wing) regulates print media in India. The Press and Registration of
Books Act 1867 and the Registration of Newspapers (Central) Rules 1956 prescribe the
certification and duties of printers and publishers of news and books. The Press Council of
India, a statutory body, is responsible for preserving the freedom of the press, maintaining
and improving the standards of newspapers and news agencies, etc. Its powers include
conducting inquiries into complaints, inter alia, against newspapers or news agencies for
offending the standards of journalistic ethics or professional misconduct by editors or
journalists.
Films
The Cinematograph Act 1952 regulates the certification of cinematograph films for exhibition.
The Cinematograph Act, read with the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules 1983, stipulate
the principles guiding certification of films and categories of certification. The Cinematograph
Act also established the Censor Board for Film Certification (CBFC) for the purpose of
sanctioning films. By way of the Tribunal Reforms Ordinance 2021, the central government
abolished the appellate tribunal (the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal) established under
the Cinematograph Act. MIB (the Films Wing) administers cinematograph films and allied
activities.
Broadcasting

The broadcsting Wing of MIB is in charge of regulating broadcasting, including cable TV and
FM Radio.

 The Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 (the CTN Act) read with
The Cable Television Networks Rules 1994 (the CTN Rules) regulate the operation of
cable television networks in India. This includes stipulating registration and licensing
requirements for cable operators, prescribing a code for programme and
advertisement content to be broadcasted on cable television, and stipulating
conditions applicable to broadcasters pertaining to the nature and pricing of
channels[JD1] [NS2] . In June 2021, MIB issued notification of the Cable Television
Networks (Amendment) Rules 2021, which, inter alia, propose a three-tier redressal
mechanism involving: (1) self-regulation by the broadcasters; (2) self-regulating
bodies of broadcasters; and (3) oversight by the central government. The
constitutional validity of the provisions pertaining to central government’s oversight
have been challenged through various pleas, which are now pending hearing before
the Supreme Court.

Digital media

Digital media such as online news publications, online curated content publishers including
OTTs and social media platforms are regulated under the IT Act read with the Intermediaries
Guidelines. The Intermediaries Guidelines, inter alia, impose due diligence requirements on
intermediaries and social media intermediaries, such as prominently displaying the user
policies, warning users against the use of illegal or obscene content, maintaining a robust
grievance redressal mechanism for complaints on or against the intermediary, etc. The
Intermediaries Guidelines also establish a code of ethics for news publishers and publishers
 MEDIA LAW

of online curated content, although the constitutional validity of some of these provisions
have been challenged and are pending scrutiny before the Supreme Court.
Cable operator

The CTN Act stipulates that no person can operate a cable television network without being
registered as a cable operator after meeting the prescribed eligibility criteria. The CTN Act
defines a ‘cable operator’ to mean any person who provides cable service through a cable
television network or otherwise controls or is responsible for the management and operation
of a cable television network.
Application for registration as a cable operator can be made under the prescribed form for a
fee of 500 rupees along with documents mentioned in Form 1. The licence is renewable
every 12 months. Neither the CTN Act nor the CTN Rules specify the timelines within which
an application will be accepted or rejected.
Cable operator

The CTN Act stipulates that no person can operate a cable television network without being registered
as a cable operator after meeting the prescribed eligibility criteria. The CTN Act defines a ‘cable
operator’ to mean any person who provides cable service through a cable television network or
otherwise controls or is responsible for the management and operation of a cable television network.
Application for registration as a cable operator can be made under the prescribed form for a fee of
500 rupees along with documents mentioned in Form 1. The licence is renewable every 12 months.
Neither the CTN Act nor the CTN Rules specify the timelines within which an application will be
accepted or rejected.

Current Challenges Of Indian Media With Respect To Media Law And ethics
As media influence grows beyond human reach, the fourth pillar of democracy takes pride in being
fair, impartial, and presenting the facts. However, as recent events demonstrate, media is
confronted with several challenges that jeopardize its very own function, including the current test
of nationalism in the name of religion, hate crimes, and social evils; the media has played a
disastrous role, whether it is through the propagation of religious ideologies, poor reporting in
sensitive cases or investigative cowboy journalism that harmed the media's credibility.

With time, the media's methods of disseminating its views, viewpoints, evidence, and knowledge
have expanded. Nowadays, knowledge is exchanged in a variety of ways–including
blogs, WhatsApp groups, YouTube channels, television channels,
newspapers, magazines, smartphone and desktop apps. India has grown into one of the world's
largest media markets.

There are various unethical media law practices in our Indian journalism sector at present

Paid News:

 It is one of the most serious challenges to media. It is fundamental ethical media to

be truthful and fair since a vast number of people will eventually see it and shape
 MEDIA LAW

their opinions based on it

Possible Solution:

 Awareness should be there in viewers to identify which journalist propagates one-

sided view and does not identify the key issues at present. Thus paid news can be
identified easily by way of targeted advertisements or sponsorships or targeting any
specific community of the society. Hence viewer’s education is a must to deal with
this problem.

Media Trial:
 A media trial is a trial similar to a court of law in which the media house declares an
individual innocent or guilty before the court's final judgment based on debates and
discussions. Additionally, it results in the formation of beliefs in the minds of
individuals, thus impacting the case's meritocracy. The media trials were visible in
the Jessica Lal murder case and the Sushant Singh Rajput drug case, among others.

Possible Solution:

 Self Regularisation of Media channels by way of ethical codes put forthwith by The
News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA) should not only be limited to fines or
reprimand but also strict legal actions against the TV channel by suspending them for
a temporary period or criminally charging them in the court of law should be
implemented. Repeated offenders of such media channels should also face strict
action by the Press Council of India; although it does not have much power at
present but more power should be given to such kind of bodies

Lack of Diversity in Reportage:

 There are 800 television channels in India, as well as 36,000 weekly magazine
publications and thousands of web portals. On the surface, there is a dearth of
variety in news coverage as a result of the 'tyranny of distance'.

For instance, many remote areas, such as the northeast, south India, and tier-3 cities,
receive little coverage in the national media. With such impediments to journalistic
freedom, it is important to consider the strength of the fourth pillar of our
 MEDIA LAW

democracy's base.

Possible Solution:
 Promoting independent journalism which is free from external political influences by
increasing their watch time and financially supporting them at our end; for example,
Schoop Whoop Unscripted, Quint and other regional media houses have a long way
to go in our future journalism industry.

A Handful Ownership of Media:

 Transparency in the inner workings of Indian media organisations is diminishing

resulting in the jeopardization of the media's reputation.
The majority of Indian media outlets are owned/ operated either by politically
connected individuals or businessman having their political influence inclined
towards one political party. For instance, Subhash Chandra, a BJP Member of
Parliament, owns the Zee Network, which includes the channels Zee News, Wion,
and others

Possible Solution:
 According to the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), it was seen that the countries
with functioning public media have greater press freedom and less corruption. Thus,
establishing a public funding mechanism for the media can be a step towards
enhancing media freedom.

Attack on Journalist:
 With the rising hate crimes and threat calls faced by a journalist in today’s era
becomes a very serious issue for the media industry to provide fair reporting in any
subject matter especially after the death of Gauri Lankesh - news reporter; hence it
becomes an impediment for the current lot of journalist to provide fearless
journalism.

Therefore in any large scale democracy; “dissent is the safety valve of the
democracy” as said by Justice Chandrachud; but still these ground reporters are
faced by NSA (National Security Act), UAPA (Unlawful Activity Prevention Act)
wherein they have to face serious legal issues. An example being the Uttar Pradesh
incident of ground reporting showing the incompetence of Mid-day meal schemes of
 MEDIA LAW

state government wherein the reality was as shocking as reported by the media
person.

Possible Solution:
 (Independent Judiciary + Independent Media + Citizen Awareness) are the key to
tackle such issue legally. Media is the fourth pillar of democracy which needs to
complement such issues raised by the public or judiciary at various point of time
impartially and not become just a mere spectator or puppet for the government.

Case laws on media law

Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India

(Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 366)

J: Hima Kohli, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud

Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited (“MBL”) filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Kerala High Court
challenging MIB’s revocation of permission granted to MBL for uplinking and downlinking a news
and current affairs television channel ‘Media One’, and prayed for grant of an opportunity to be
heard before revoking the permission. The writ petition was dismissed by a Single Judge and the
Division Bench, subsequently relying on material disclosed solely to the Hon’ble Court in a sealed
cover by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (“MHA”). MBL filed a Special Leave Petition before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court against the order of the division bench of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court. MIB
granted MBL permission to uplink 'Media One' for a period of ten years under the Policy Guidelines
for Uplinking of Television Channels from India (“Uplinking Guidelines”). MIB also issued a
registration certificate for downlinking of the ‘Media One’ channel for a period of five years in
accordance with the provisions of the Policy Guidelines for Downlinking of Television Channels
(“Downlinking Guidelines”). However, later, MIB issued a notice to show cause to MBL proposing to
revoke the permission for uplinking and downlinking granted to ‘Media One’ and ‘Media One Life’ in
view of the denial of security clearance by Ministry of Home Affairs (“MHA”]
MBL contended that security clearance is a pre- condition only for the grant of permission to operate
the channel and not for the renewal of the existing permission. Moreover, security clearance cannot
be denied on grounds that exceed the reasonable restrictions on the freedom of the press
prescribed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.Furthermore, refusal of security clearance
must be subject to the limitations prescribed in Article 19(2) of the Constitution read with Section
4(6) of the Cable TV Act. The denial and revocation are also against the principles of natural justice,
when the State supplied the reasons for denial to the Hon’ble High Court in a sealed envelope.The
State, on the other hand, submitted that the Uplinking Guidelines demonstrate that security
clearance is a pre-condition for renewal of license, and MIB was justified in revoking the permission
granted to Media One because MHA denied security clearance. Further, the principles of natural
justice stand excluded when issues of national security are involve. To begin with, the Hon’ble
 MEDIA LAW

Supreme Court analysed the power of judicial review on procedural ground, and held that it is a
settled position of law that an administrative action can be challenged on the ground of a violation
of fundamental rights. Administrative action is judicially reviewable on the grounds of (i)
unreasonableness or irrationality; (ii) illegality; and (iii) procedural impropriety.

In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also considered the issues of non-disclosure of reasons
for denial of security clearance leading to infringement of right to fair hearing, protected under
Articles 14 and 21; and if infringement of the right to a fair hearing would render the decision void.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court also considered the issue if considerations of national security are an
established exception to principles of natural justice, then how should the court resolve the
competing interests represented by the principles of natural justice and national security.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in this regard, held that the notice to show cause states that MHA
denied security clearance to MBL, however, it does not mention the reasons for the denial of
security clearance. Further, MHA also declined to disclose any material that was relevant to its
decision, which was not limited to a few 'top secret' documents but all relevant documents were
undisclosed. Furthermore, MIB denied to disclose MBL even the summary of the reasoning denying
security clearance. This has necessarily left MBL with no remedy.

Case Title: All India Gaming Federation v. State of Tamil Nadu & ORS

Author: P.D.Audikesavalu

Bench: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala, P.D.Audikesavalu

W.P.Nos.13203 of 2023

All India Gaming Federation challenged the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Online Gaming and Regulation
of Online Games Act, 2022 (“TN Gaming Act”), before the Hon’ble Madras High Court. The TN
Gaming Act, among other things, classified rummy and poker as a prohibited online game under
Entry 34 of List II (State List), Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India.All India Gaming
Federation argued that since the Intermediary Guidelines cover the online gaming sphere, the state
is not competent to legislate on the said subject. They also challenged the report submitted by a
Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice K. Chandru (Retd.) which had arbitrarily categorised
online rummy and online poker to be games of chance. Further, they contended that report
summarised findings of High Court judgments, “Skill gaming cannot be banned but may be
regulated. Any such ban can be challenged on the grounds of violation of Constitutional Rights”, but
bifurcated playing online rummy into two activities, “playing” and “betting”, without any logical
reasoning and completely contrary to the rulings in many judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
and the High Courts.The State of Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, contended that no repugnancy has
resulted due to the amendment of the Intermediary Guidelines. Moreover, the judgments relied on
by All India Gaming Federation to contend that the game of rummy is a game of skill date to an era
where there was no internet or it was in its infancy. Further, online rummy cannot be described as a
game of skill due to various reasons, as its dealer (software) knows all the unopened cards.
Furthermore, for the game of poker, even when poker is played physically, the game has been held
to be a game of chance.The State of Tamil Nadu also emphasizes on the fact that online rummy and
online poker are substantially different from rummy and poker played in physical space, and
 MEDIA LAW

therefore, judgments, which ostensibly state that physical rummy or physical poker are games of
skill and cannot be relied upon for online rummy and online poker to state that they are a games of
skill. The Hon’ble Madras High Court partly struck down the TN Gaming Act, limiting to holding that
the definition of “online gambling” under Section 2(i) of the TN Gaming Act shall be read as
restricted to “games of chance” and not games involving skill. Further, the Hon’ble High Court held
that the games of rummy and poker are games of card, but are games of skill, and therefore, Section
2 (l)(iv) of the TN Gaming Act dealing with the definition of “online gaming of chance” to be read
down, to mean, it excludes games of skill viz., rummy and poker.

Observing that in a number of judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and numerous high courts
holding that rummy is a game of skill, the Hon’ble Madras High Court held that it is well-established
that rummy, when played physically, is a game of skill. The Hon’ble Madras High Court also held that
the online game of rummy with physical game, and held that in online game of rummy, the same
brain activity would be involved as required for offline games of rummy and poker. Further, the
court held that while state government has ample power to enact a legislation to prohibit online
gambling and to regulate online games of skill, instead of resorting to regulating rummy and poker,
the state of Tamil Nadu has simply prohibited the said games. Therefore, the same was in excess of
its legislative competence.The Hon’ble Madras High Court, finally held that the definition of “online
gambling” under Section 2(i) of the Act to be read as restricted to “games of chance” and not games
involving skill. Section 2(l)(iv) of the TN Gaming Act to be read down, to mean, it excludes games of
skill viz., rummy and poker. The court reached this conclusion through an analysis that online games
of rummy and poker are different and distinct from offline games of rummy and poker. The Schedule
of the TN Gaming Act, including the games of rummy and poker, were also set aside.

Case Title: Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors

Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. (Delhi High Court CS(Comm) 652 of 2023)_J Prathiba M.
Singh

Actor Anil Kapoor approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court seeking protection for personality rights,
publicity rights and other elements associated with his persona, which were used by Simply Life
India and other 18 rogue websites.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, while underscoring the extent of freedom of expression, held that
even though the right to expression is a fundamental right, the same cannot be used to jeopardise a
person’s personality or infringe their privacy, which is an actionable offence. The Hon’ble Delhi High
Court further held that the right to privacy takes within its ambit the right to be left alone, which
extends to public figures as well.Furthermore, it was held that the aspects of a public figure’s
personality are a big source of income for them, and therefore the same cannot be used by someone
else without prior authorisation. The Hon’ble Court, therefore, prohibited Simply Life India from
unauthorisedly using the public aspects of the personality of Anil Kapoor. Additionally, Proxy LLC,
GoDaddy LLC and Dynadot LLC, the internet service providers, were directed to lock and suspend the
domain names which had any bearing with the name of the actor Anil Kapoor.
 MEDIA LAW

Case Title: Mubeen Rauf v. Union Of India

(Mubeen Rauf v. Union Of India, WP(C) No. 32733 OF 2023)

J: Author: Siddharth Mridul

Bench: Siddharth Mridul, Talwant Singh

Mubeen Rauf, a Malayalam movie director, filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble Kerala High Court
praying for a gag order directing GoI, MeitY, CBFC, Department of Electronics and Information
Technology, Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation, and State Police to ensure that the social media
influencers and film reviewing vloggers do not publish any reviews of flim “Aromalinte Adyathe
Pranayam” on social media for at least 7 days from the date of release of the film. Mubeen Rauf
contended that there is an organized racket, particularly in the online spectrum, of deliberately
denigrating and tarnishing a movie with intention of unjust enrichment, coupled with blackmail and
extortion. Further, persons who claim to be reviewers are neither accredited as journalists, nor are
they operating under any guidelines or parameters in law, but that many of them put out contents in
denigration deliberately, in order to obtain certain confutative benefits.

The Hon’ble Kerala High Court appointed an amicus curie to verify the claims of Mubeen Rauf. The
amicus curie submitted before the Hon’ble Court that there is sufficient materials to establish that
there exists a group/ racket who think that they can ‘make or break movies’. The Hon’ble Kerala High
Court also dealt with the issue of lack of measures wherein directors, producers or other persons
associated with movies can make complaints, to trigger a proper investigation and the consequences
flowing therefrom - both under the Penal Law and under the laws relating to Cyber Crimes. GoI
contended that the functionaries of the Central Government are also aware of this problem - not
only in Kerala but in many other parts of India; and therefore, that they will also deliberate upon this
and offer suggestions. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court directed the State Police to keep a watch over
the posts, particularly against anonymous posts, which contain vituperative or virulent content. The
reputation of individuals behind a film cannot be sacrificed by the unbridled freedom of expression
asserted by individuals, who act under the mistaken impression that they are not governed by any
parameters/ regulations, particularly when there is nothing on record to show that any of them are
registered, akin to journalists or such other service providers. The matter is still pending before the
Hon’ble Kerala High Court.

case Title: TVF Media Labs Pvt. Ltd. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Anr

TVF Media Labs (P) Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 1 HCC (Del) 778.

J:Swarana Kanta Sharma

TVF Media Labs Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
seeking quashing of the order to register FIR against it after conducting investigation into the
allegations of vulgarity and obscenity in TVF’s content.
 MEDIA LAW

TVF Media Labs Pvt. Ltd. is the owner of the web series ‘College Romance’ broadcasted on various
internet platforms such as YouTube, TVF Web Portal and Mobile Applications. A complainant filed a
complaint contending that the web series contains vulgar and obscene material which depicts
women in indecent form, which is in violation of the provisions of Sections 292 and 294 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), Section 67 and 67-A of Information Technology Act, 2000 (“IT Act”) and
Section 2(c), 3 and 4 of Indecent Representation of Women Prohibition Act, 1986.It was also
contended that though vulgar words had been used throughout the entire web series ‘College
Romance’, Episode 05 of Season 01 of the said web series had crossed all the limits of vulgarity and
internet obscenity, in the name of entertainment and with the motive of financial gains which was
available to be viewed by everyone in India on YouTube without give any legal disclaimer or warning
against age appropriate content.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court navigated through Section 67 and 67-A of the IT Act and stated that
the object behind the enactment was to punish the acts of publishing or transmitting obscene
material in electronic form.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court stated that to decide whether the content was obscene or not, the test
as per judicial precedents had to be that of an ordinary common person and not a hypersensitive
person. Therefore, The Hon’ble Delhi High Court watched a few episodes of the web series to decide
the case more effectively and fairly, acting itself as a common prudent person and accordingly stated
that the actors or protagonists in the web series were not using the language used in our country i.e.
civil language.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that the people who were likely to be affected or corrupted,
were of the impressionable minds, since there was no warning or disclaimer that this series was to
be viewed by persons who were 18 years or above. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court noted that the
male protagonist uses words describing sexual acts, thus by words, painting pictures of sexually
explicit act which brings it under ambit of arousing prurient feelings by so doing. Therefore, the said
content would attract the criminality under Section 67 and 67-A of IT Act.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court pointed towards the legal duty of the online content curator to ensure
that the transmitted material aligns with the expectations of the intended audience. Additionally,
the content must not cross the fine line between acceptable standards of decency and vulgar
language, in order to prevent any legal transgressions.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that it had to strike a delicate balance between free speech
and freedom of expression and transmitting to all, without classification of the content, which
maybe obscene, profane, lascivious, sexually explicit in spoken language.

Accordingly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court upheld that Section 292 (sale of obscene material) and 294
(obscene acts and songs) IPC were not made out; however, it held that direction to register of FIR
under sections 67 (publishing or transmitting obscene material in electronic form ) and 67-A
(publishing or transmitting of material containing sexually explicit act, etc. in electronic form) of the
IT Act is maintainable.
 MEDIA LAW

Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB and Ors. vs. State through CBI 2004(72)DRJ693_J: J.D.
Kapoor

The observations of the Delhi High Court in Bofors Case or Kartongen Kemi Och Forvaltning AB and
Ors. vs. State through CBI are very much relevant, as the Court weighed in favour of the accused’s
right of fair trial while calculating the role of media in streamlining the criminal justice system:

“It is said and to great extent correctly that through media publicity those who know about the
incident may come forward with information, it prevents perjury by placing witnesses under public
gaze and it reduces crime through the public expression of disapproval for crime and last but not the
least it promotes the public discussion of important issues. All this is done in the interest of freedom
of communication and right of information little realizing that right to a fair trial is equally valuable.”

Such a right has been emphatically recognized by the European Court of Human Rights:

“Again it cannot be excluded that the public becoming accustomed to the regular spectacle of
pseudo trials in the news media might in the long run have nefarious consequences for the
acceptance of the courts as the proper forum for the settlement of legal disputes.”

The ever-increasing tendency to use media while the matter is sub-judice has been frowned down by
the courts including the Supreme Court of India on the several occasions.

State of Maharashtra vs. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 3986

_J D.P. Wadhwa

Bench: M.K. Mukherjee, D.P. Wadhwa

In State of Maharashtra vs. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, the Supreme Court observed:

“There is procedure established by law governing the conduct of trial of a person accused of an
offence. A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is very antithesis of rule of law. It can
well lead to miscarriage of justice. A judge has to guard himself against any such pressure and is to
be guided strictly by rules of law. If he finds the person guilty of an offence he is then to address
himself to the question of sentence to be awarded to him in accordance with the provisions of law.”

The position was most aptly summed up in the words of Justice H.R.Khanna: –

“Certain aspects of a case are so much highlighted by the press that the publicity gives rise to strong
public emotions. The inevitable effect of that is to prejudice the case of one party or the other for a
fair trial. We must consider the question as to what extent are restraints necessary and have to be
exercised by the press with a view to preserving the purity of judicial process. At the same time, we
have to guard against another danger. A person cannot, as I said speaking for a Full Bench of the
Delhi High Court in 1969, by starting some kind of judicial proceedings in respect of matter of vital
public importance stifle all public discussions of that matter on pain of contempt of court. A line to
balance the whole thing has to be drawn at some point. It also seems necessary in exercising the
power of contempt of court or legislature vis-à-vis the press that no hyper-sensitivity is shown and
due account is taken of the proper functioning of a free press in a democratic society. This is vital for
ensuring the health of democracy. At the same time the press must also keep in view its
responsibility and see that nothing is done as may bring the courts or the legislature into disrepute
and make the people lose faith in these institutions.”

Rajendra Sail vs Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar ... on 21 April, AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT
2473_J: Tarun Chatterjee
 MEDIA LAW

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Sail Vs. Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar
Association and Others[34], observed that for rule of law and orderly society, a free responsible
press and an independent judiciary are both indispensable and both have to be, therefore,
protected. The aim and duty of both is to bring out the truth. And it is well known that the truth is
often found in shades of grey. Therefore the role of both cannot be but emphasized enough,
especially in a “new India”, where the public is becoming more aware and sensitive to its
surroundings than ever before. The only way of orderly functioning is to maintain the delicate
balance between the two. The country cannot function without two of the pillars its people trust the
most.

Broadcast Limited and Ors. v Tips Industries Ltd. and Ors _J Siddharth Mridul

Bench: Siddharth Mridul, Anup Jairam Bhambhani

The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), OP (SEC-31D)/3/2020/CR/NZ

The issue of the amount of license fee payable by the FM Radio companies to the music companies
has been the subject matter of dispute for long time. As a result of this, the court decided ten similar
applications by this one order. The Copyright Amendment Act, 2012 introduced Section 31D which
provides a statutory license to all broadcasting organizations desirous of communicating to the public
by way of a broadcast, provided that such broadcasting organization will pay the owner of such rights
royalties in the manner and at the rates fixed by the Appellate Board.
The legislature’s intent of introducing 31D was not only as a right in favour of broadcasting
organizations but also with the objective to ensure public access to sound recordings over the FM
radio, without subjecting the broadcasting organizations to tedious negotiations with the owners of
the sound recordings.
The music companies pleaded to be able to negotiate the rate of royalty in a free market and that
the royalty should not be fixed on net advertising revenue. Advertising revenue, they argued, can
drop solely due to the broadcaster because of poor curation of content, sub-par understanding of
consumer taste and other such concerns. They, instead, proposed the needle per hour (NPH) method
or the gross revenue method.
The radio companies, on the other hand, refused to pay higher royalty on the grounds that they were
promoting social welfare activities. But with the onset of privatisation of radio channels, radio
companies have started to be driven by profits. Before the amendments to the Copyright Act, 1957 in
2012, when commissioning or employing the authors/composers, a film producer would be the first
owner of the copyright in the literary and musical works incorporated in the cinematograph
film/sound recording. Before this, there was no statutory requirement for royalty to be payable for
the literary and musical works.
The right to receive royalty is usually shared right between the assignee alongside the author and
music composer, however, the court was of the opinion that the liability or payment of royalty lies on
the actual utilizer because payment is connected to the utilization of the work. The broadcasting
organizations wanted to pay the royalty under a single head of “sound recording”, making it the duty
of the producer/ music companies to share the revenues with the authors and music composers. On
the other hand, the music companies argued that the authors and composers were entitled to the
royalties under the separate head just as the Broadcasters were doing earlier.
Section 31D (1) reads that the broadcasting organization is the sole beneficiary of the statutory
license and the license cannot be conferred upon anyone else. Therefore, the broadcasting
organization alone is statutorily obliged to make payment of the royalty to the owners of the works.
 MEDIA LAW

In this way, the broadcasters are utilizing the said work for commercial benefit and the said liability
of the broadcasters cannot be shifted or imposed on any other participant. Therefore, the
broadcasting organization is the sole entity that has to pay the royalties as prescribed.
The IPAB then went on to highlight the necessity that such a provision is applied in accordance with
the due process and keeping in mind the interests of the copyright owner as balanced against the
public interest to access music by way of radio broadcast. Due to this, giving prominence to the
commercial interests of radio broadcasters in fixing royalty rates under the said provision would be
prejudicial to the copyright owner and skew the balance heavily in favour of the radio broadcasters
contrary to the letter and spirit of the said provision. Thus, on a careful reading of the statute, it was
held that Needle per Hour (NPH) would be the appropriate method for the determination of the rate
of royalty.

Raj Television Network Limited v. Kavithalaya Productions Private Limited and Ors., High Court of
Madras, O.A. No. 446 of 2020 in C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 244 of 2020

J: c.v karthikeyan

The 1st defendant, is a producer and first owner of the entire copyright with respect to each one of
the said 34 movies and the 1st defendant had assigned and transferred the rights now sought to be
protected by the plaintiff by an agreement dated 06.02.2001 for a consideration of INR 65, 00,000/-
(Rupees sixty five lakhs) for a period of 99 years. The plaintiff had agreed not to assign any further
rights to any other party with consulting the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff had been exploiting the
films by marketing the DVD rights and by telecasting the films through Satellite Television network on
their channel Raj TV. After the advent of the internet, they have been streaming the films in the
various internet platforms known as OTT platform.
The plaintiff then came to know that two of the films Annamalai and Duet were distributed on the
3rd defendant’s streaming platform, following which, the plaintiff issued a notice to the\
3rd defendant. The 1st defendant sent a reply stating that the claim of the plaintiff for internet rights
was illegal and the plaintiff did not possess any such right. The plaintiff disputed the said claim.
This was followed by a series of notices being sent by the plaintiff and the defendants to one
another. Subsequently, the suit was preferred seeking reliefs under the Copyright Act, 1957, for a
declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the entire copyrights. The court passed an
interim order in the favor of the plaintiff.

Shamoil Ahmad Khan vs. Falguni Shah and Ors., High Court of Bombay, MANU/MH/0590/2020

J: S.C. Gupte

The plaintiff in this matter, is the author of the popular short story ‘Singardaan’. The defendant is the
producer of a web series which is also titled Singardaan, same as the plaintiff’s story. After the
plaintiff became aware of the defendant’s web series, the plaintiff approached the court, seeking a
temporary injunction against the defendant for making a web series of the same name with a similar
story line. Both had the same base script of a vanity mirror belonging to someone bringing out in
another user a change in appearance or behaviour, which mirrored the behaviour of the original
owner of the vanity.
The court opined that, “in a written work of art, such as the story with which we are concerned here,
a germ of an idea is developed into a theme and then into a plot and then final story with the help of
characters and settings. It is a combination of all these elements which give a body to the work or a
 MEDIA LAW

substance to it.”
After reviewing the facts and evidence presented the court decided that there would be a copyright
violation if the similarities are on fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression
adopted in the copyrighted work. This would be based on the effect the work creates on the reader,
spectator or viewer. The court found a substantial similarity in both the storylines and ordered the
defendant to restrain from making any further adaptation or use in a different format of their web
series by the name of “Singardaan”, pending the final disposal of the suit.

Ramgopal Varma and Ors. vs. Perumalla Amrutha, High Court of Telangana, MANU/TL/0352/2020

The appellants in this matter include the director and others involved in the making of the film
‘Murder’. The respondent in this matter, had claimed that, the film is allegedly based entirely on her
life story, with regard to her husband’s death. Earlier this year the Telengana High Court set aside an
injunction from the Trial court, that had halted the release of the film Murder.
When the promo for the film was released on YouTube, the respondent filed a suit against the
appellants for a perpetual injunction restraining the release of the film. In the lawsuit, the
respondent, claimed that her right to privacy guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
had been violated, specifically because of the appellants’ reference to her name, her husband’s
name and her father’s name in various social media posts, while announcing the release of the film.
After referring to another honour killing in August 2020, the court stated that the events which had
occurred in the life of the respondent are not unique to her and to her family alone. While
summarizing the principle of protection of right to privacy, the court clarified that, while there was a
definite right to privacy, the exception to the principle was that “once the matter becomes a matter
of public record, the right to privacy is no longer subsisting and it becomes a legitimate subject for
comment for press and media among others.” The court, made notice of the fact that events
concerned in this case had been widely covered by newspapers and are “in public domain” because
of the FIR and Session’s case filed with regard to the respondent’s husband’s death.
In the final decision given by the court, the appellants were allowed to release the film after being
instructed by the court that, they were not allowed to use the names of the respondent and her
family members, in order to ensure that the respondent does not suffer any further pain and
anguish. The court also directed the appellants, to publish a disclaimer stating that the film was a
work of fiction.

Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited and Ors. Vs. Nandi Chinni Kumar and Ors., High Court of
Telengana, Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 355, 356, 357 and 358 of 2020

J: M.S.Ramachandra Rao

The plaintiff in this case is a music record label and film production company and the defendant no.1
is a former gangster turned football player. According to the plaintiff, defendant no.1 had signed an
agreement with the plaintiff, through which defendant no.1 gave the film rights to his life story to the
plaintiff for a sum of money. Following this, the plaintiff registered the film script with the title ‘Slum
Soccer’ with the Telangana Cinema Writers’ Association. However, soon after registering the film
script for Slum Soccer, the plaintiff read about a film titled ‘Jhund’, which was based on the life story
of defendant no.2 who was defendant no1’s coach. Although the film Jhund was based the life story
of defendant no.2, the film’s story also showed the story of defendant no.1. The plaintiff then
 MEDIA LAW

informed defendant nos. 1-12, about the previous agreement that the plaintiff had signed with
defendant no.1, which gave the plaintiff absolute rights over defendant no.1’s life story and that if
the defendants continued shooting for the film Jhund, they would be liable for copyright
infringement. The plaintiff also issued a cease and desist notice to defendant nos.1-12 and stated
that defendant no.1 admitted to the plaintiff that he had signed an agreement with defendant no. 3
subsequent to assignment of rights in favour of the plaintiff by receiving substantial consideration
and also permitted the defendant no.3 to incorporate the character of 1st defendant in the said film.
The plaintiff contended that he owns the concept, thought, characterization, image, identity and
expression apart from copyright in respect of true life story events of 1st defendant, that the action
of defendant nos. 1 to 12 in making the said film with a character/image/identity and scenes based
on the true life story events of the 1st defendant constitutes infringement of the copyright of the
plaintiffs original work ‘Slum Soccer’, that defendant nos. 1 to 12 have without his consent used the
literary work and/or its constituent elements contained in the plaintiff’s copyrighted story.
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a perpetual injunction prohibiting defendant nos. 3 to 12 from
exhibiting or broad-casting the movie Jhund from all the theatres in India as well as abroad. In
response to the suit, the defendants stated that no case had been made out by the plaintiff for grant
of injunction against them and other defendants from proceeding with the release of the film, titled
‘Jhund’. Further, defendants 3, 5, 6 and 7 also contended that it is possible to make a movie only on
the coach, the 2nd defendant, without having the character of the 1st defendant, the alleged Don
turned Footballer who captained the Indian Slum Soccer Team in the Slum Soccer World Cup. But it
was held that, the ‘probability’ of the doing it is low because the marketability of a movie about a
celebrity sportsperson is far higher than the marketability of a movie about his coach without the
celebrity pupil/sportsperson which in this case was defendant no.1 and being a commercial venture,
the risk of the film only about the coach without the celebrity pupil ending in a flop, is much more.
The court observed from the teaser of the film ‘Jhund’, that there are distinct similarities in the plot,
depiction and the life and story of the protagonist of the film as with the registered script of ‘Slum
Soccer’ of the plaintiff, and the defendants have not specifically denied any of these aforementioned
allegations of the plaintiff with regard to similarities between the film scripts. The court observed
that there was a strong prima facie case of infringement against the defendants and opined that an
interim injunction should be granted in favor of the plaintiff.

Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Ors. vs. Kimcartoon.to and Ors., Delhi High Court, CS(COMM)
275/2020 J: Rajiv Shakdher

The plaintiffs in this matter were companies incorporated in the United States of America, involved in
the business of creation, production and distribution of motion pictures and cinematograph films.
The defendants in this lawsuit included several rogue websites that had provided users with free
access to pirated content. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of
Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY), were also included as co-defendants by the
plaintiffs, along with several ISPs (Internet Service Providers). The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the
defendants for streaming original and copyrighted content created by the Plaintiffs, without
acquiring any prior authorisation from the Plaintiffs. After reviewing the list of the infringing websites
submitted by the Plaintiffs, and the content being made available on those websites, the court
opined that the Defendants were infringing the plaintiffs’ copyrights.
The court therefore restrained the Defendants from hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing,
making available to the public and/or communicating to the public, or facilitating the same on their
websites through the internet in any manner whatsoever, any cinematograph work, content,
programme or show in which the Plaintiffs owned copyrights. Further, the court granted an interim
 MEDIA LAW

injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs, in order to ensure that the original content created by the
Plaintiffs was protected, and directed the Plaintiffs to file the necessary applications before the court
in case of any further infringement by these websites. The court also ordered DoT and MEITY to issue
necessary directions/notifications to various ISPs in general, to block access to the defendants’
websites.

Vinay Vats vs. Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., Delhi High Court, I.A. 6351/2020 in
CS(COMM.) 291/2020 J: C. Hari Shankar

The plaintiff in this lawsuit was a writer and the defendant was a production house. The Plaintiff filed
this lawsuit claiming to be the original scriptwriter and own the copyright in the script of the film
titled ‘Tukkaa Fitt’, and alleging that the film ‘Lootcase’, produced by the Defendant, had the same
story as the film Tukkaa Fitt, produced by M/s. AAP Entertainment Limited. However, due to the
sudden death of one of the producers, the film’s release was indefinitely delayed, despite the
production of the film being completed in November 2012. The Plaintiff in the lawsuit claimed that,
the film ‘Lootcase’, was only recently brought to the Plaintiff’s attention and when the Plaintiff
watched the trailer, the Plaintiff noted several similarities between Lootcase and Tukka Fitt.
The film Lootcase was set to release on 31st July, 2020. However, the Plaintiff chose to file a lawsuit
for the grant of an interim injunction mere days before the release of the film, despite the film’s
trailer being launched almost a year before the release date. The story of the film Lootcase revolved
around a suitcase full of cash, and several people looking for that suitcase after it went missing. The
Defendants stated that the film’s story line was a very common one, which had been previously used
in several films. Further, the Defendants stated that according to the documents submitted by the
Plaintiff, the producers of the film Tukkaa Fitt, had paid a certain sum of money to the Plaintiff, to
purchase the script of the film, and all the rights subsisting therein. Due to this, the extent of the
Plaintiff’s rights over the film’s script needed to be clarified. The court observed that, copyright can
only be granted for the expression of an idea and not for the idea itself, and that idea can be
expressed in several forms. According to the court, in order to determine whether two films were
exactly the same in terms of the execution, the most reliable way to do determine that, was to see
the audience’s reaction to both the films. If the audiences found any similarities in both the films,
then the next step was to ascertain the extent of such similarity.
The court opined that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the Defendant. The court was not
convinced with the Plaintiff’s claim of becoming aware of Lootcase’s release only recently, since the
media had been covering the film for a year before the release date. Further, the court stated that by
filing a lawsuit only a few days before the film’s release, the Plaintiff tried to compel the court to
expedite the proceedings to get an interim injunction to halt the film’s release. The court therefore,
decided in favour of the Defendant and dismissed the Plaintiff’s plea for the grant of an interim
injunction.

Microsoft Corporation and Ors. vs. Satveer Gaur and Ors., Delhi High Court, CS (COMM)
1324/2016, CCP (O) 134/2010 and IA 2667/2016 J: V. Kameswar Rao

The Plaintiffs in this matter were Microsoft Corporation (‘Microsoft’), situated in USA, Microsoft
Corporation Pvt. Ltd. a wholly owned marketing subsidiary in India, Adobe Systems incorporated in
USA, and Quest Software Inc., incorporated in USA. The defendants in this matter included
Defendant No. 2 which appeared to be a company named ‘Chetu’,and was in the business of
providing IT services and solutions to its clients. The Plaintiffs in this case accused the Defendants of
 MEDIA LAW

infringing their intellectual property rights, by committing copyright piracy, and selling the pirated
versions of their software using the same kind of packaging that the plaintiffs would have used, to
sell the software products. The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant no.2 copied their respective
software programs without acquiring the required licenses and permissions from each of the
plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs claimed that such unauthorised copying, duplicating and selling of the Plaintiffs’ software
programs caused serious harm to the Plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation along with monetary losses
to the Plaintiffs’ businesses. The Plaintiffs claimed that they received information on their Business
Software Alliance (BSA) website reporting the usage of unlicensed/pirated software programs by the
Defendants on their computers. The BSA is a non-profit association of global software companies
including the plaintiffs, formed to fight software piracy through large scale use of unlicensed/pirated
software and thus strive to promote a safe and legal digital world. The Plaintiffs also conducted an
investigation of their own, through which they learned that the Microsoft and Adobe software
programs were being used widely by Defendant no. 2 to service its clients. This was further
confirmed when the investigator spoke with Defendant no.1, Mr. Satveer Gaur, who worked as a
system administrator with Chetu. After the investigation was completed, the plaintiffs filed a
copyright infringement suit in the Delhi High Court, against the defendants and presented before the
court the information gathered through the investigation.
The defendants denied the claims made by the plaintiffs and stated that they had the required
licenses and were authorized dealers of the plaintiffs’ products. Following this, the Local
Commissioner had confiscated and sealed the computers being used by the defendants to conduct
their business, and concluded in his report that that the defendants were in fact using
unauthorized/unlicensed versions of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 3’s software on several computer
systems. The defendants however, did not contest these allegations made by the Commissioner, as a
result of which the court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. The court granted a permanent injunction
against the defendants, along with the monetary compensation deemed necessary by the court.

Jagran Prakashan Limited vs. Telegram FZ LLC & Ors., Delhi High Court, CS(COMM) 146/2020
J:Mukta Gupta

The plaintiff in this matter was a publishing company which published a leading newspaper in Hindi,
known as Dainik Jagran, and had registered the associated trademarks for the newspaper in several
classes. Readers could either subscribe to the physical copy of the Dainik Jagran newspaper, or access
the digital version of the newspaper from the corresponding webpage. The subscribers of the digital
version of the newspaper could access it only from the webpage and were not permitted to
download the PDF version of the newspaper. The Defendant offered a cloud based instant messaging
service called Telegram and the app version of this service is available on several operating systems
for users to download. This app also allowed users to anonymously start channels and post content
on these channels. Soon many users of Telegram started various channels named after the plaintiff’s
publication and posted the news articles published on the plaintiff’s website, in PDF format which
could be downloaded by other users. Since the Defendant claimed that it was an intermediary and
did not reveal the identity of the users that started these channels, which were infringing on the
plaintiff’s content, the Plaintiff sent a notice to the defendant asking them to shut down the
infringing channels. However, after sending four such notices to the defendant and not receiving any
response, the Plaintiff then filed a lawsuit in the High Court of Delhi and included the anonymous
users who had started the infringing channels, as co-defendants to the lawsuit.
 MEDIA LAW

As soon as the Defendant received the notice from the court, it responded claiming that the
infringing channels had been blocked, but the Plaintiff provided evidence that these channels were in
fact still active. The Plaintiff also stated that the user base for one of the infringing channels on the
defendant’s platform was increasing each day. After examining all the evidence presented by the
Plaintiff, the court ruled in favour of the Plaintiff and granted an ad-interim injunction. Further, the
court agreed with the Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant could not continue to claim its
intermediary status, and ordered the Defendant to block the infringing channels and to disclose the
names of all the users who had started each of these channels.

Ashutosh Dubey vs. Netflix Inc. and Ors., Delhi High Court, I.A. 3754/2020 in CS(OS) 120/2020

J: Mukta Gupta

This lawsuit primarily dealt with the issue of defamation, allegedly caused due to certain derogatory
remarks made by the protagonist in a web-series known as “Hasmukh”. The plaintiff in this matter
was a lawyer by profession and the defendants included the digital streaming platform Netflix, on
which viewers could access the web-series, Hasmukh. The plaintiff, while watching Hasmukh, came
across a dialogue in an episode, which in his opinion was allegedly derogatory to the legal profession.
Following this, the plaintiff filed a suit, seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the
defendants further airing or streaming of the episodes of Web-Series (TV show) “Hasmukh”
particularly Episode 4 of Season 1. The web-series was about an aspiring stand-up comedian, who
could only perform well on stage, if prior to his performance, he committed a murder of a victim who
was either corrupt or an extremely ruthless person. In the scenes preceding the impugned dialogue,
Hasmukh was being duped and harassed by a corrupt lawyer in Mumbai, which compelled him to
murder the lawyer and then proceed to make certain statements about lawyers and the legal
profession, in his stand-up comic act, while directly making references to lawyers in Mumbai. The
impugned dialogue when translated in English was as follows, “This is the first city I have seen where
even the thieves are rich. But out here, they’re called lawyers. Your lawyers are the biggest
scoundrels and thieves. These so-called upholders of law will never be brought to justice because
they rape you with their pen. People say the law is blind. But I say the law is dirty because every
lawyer carries a little stick in his hand.”
The plaintiff took offence to this dialogue, as it allegedly attacked the entire legal community and was
therefore defamatory in nature. The counsels for the defendant stated that, lawyers could not be
defamed as a class of persons, nor could the plaintiff be defamed by a general reference to a class, to
which the plaintiff belongs. It was held that, as lawyers consist of a large group of individuals and
that the impugned dialogue did not refer to or name a particular individual or more specifically the
plaintiff, it therefore cannot be considered as defamatory in nature. The court stated that the entire
theme of the show and the dialogues therein, were meant to be viewed purely as satire, and must
not be construed in the literal sense, as this was a known fact with regard to jokes made by stand-up
comedians.
Further, for a statement to be deemed as defamatory, even towards a group of people, it is necessary
that the person making such a statement refers to an individual from that particular group or class of
people. The plaintiff in this case was unable to prove that the impugned dialogue refers to the
plaintiff or that it has already caused or could potentially cause some kind of serious loss or damage
solely to the plaintiff’s reputation. The court opined that the balance of convenience was not in
favour of the plaintiff, following which the court dismissed the plaintiff’s plea for an ad interim
injunction and ruled in favour of the defendants.
 MEDIA LAW

Super Cassettes Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Prime Cable Network and Anr., Delhi High Court, CS(COMM)
594/2016 J: Prateek Jalan

The plaintiff, in this matter, was in the business of producing and marketing music cassettes, compact
discs, etc., in addition to producing and distributing films. Defendant no.1 was a large provider of
ground cable network services in the State of Uttarakhand and Defendant no.2 was an individual
working for Defendant no.1. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of a large number of copyrights in
music and literary works, films and sound recordings, including Hindi film songs, non-film songs, and
songs in regional languages. As a part of its business activities the plaintiff used to grant licenses to
various entities to allow them to use its copyrighted works. Such entities included FM Radio Stations,
Television Broadcasters, Multi-System Operators (MSO), etc. The plaintiff alleged that Defendant no.1
used to operate as a MSO and broadcasted and/or communicated without permission, the plaintiff’s
copyrighted sound recordings, the underlying lyrics, musical composition and the audio-visual works,
to the public through its cable network, thereby infringing the plaintiff’s copyright. After the plaintiff
learned about this alleged infringement, it initially sent notices informing Defendant no.1 of its
infringing activities and directed Defendant no.1 to acquire the necessary licenses to broadcast
Plaintiff’s content. Defendant no.1 however, did not respond to any of these notices, and continued
to broadcast infringing content through its cable network. Following this, the Plaintiff filed a
copyright infringement suit against Defendant no.1 in the Delhi High Court and in addition to this the
Plaintiff also conducted an investigation and presented the findings from the investigation as
evidence in court. The evidence included the recordings of the infringing content being broadcasted
on Defendant no.1’s cable network, which substantiated the Plaintiff’s claims of copyright
infringement.
Upon reviewing the facts of the case and the evidence presented by the plaintiff, the court decided in
favour of the plaintiff and granted an order of permanent injunction. The court also ordered the
defendants to pay damages to the plaintiff.

M/s. Indian Record Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Agi Music Sdn Bhd, Illaiyaraja and M/s.Unisys Info
Solutions Private Ltd., Madras High Court, C.S.No.296 of 2016 & O.A.No.338 of 2010

The plaintiff in this matter was a renowned music company engaged in the production, distribution
and sales of music albums in various forms. Defendant no.2 was a well known music composer, who,
over the years had composed music for several South Indian films. Since this suit was contested
solely by Defendant no.2, Defendants no.1 and 3 remained ex-parte. The subject matter of this
dispute was the music that Defendant no.2 had composed for many films produced by the Plaintiff,
by virtue of which Defendant no.2 claimed to be the author these musical compositions, and was in
the process of selling the copyrights to Defendant no.1. The Plaintiff was also made aware of the
same, following which it filed a copyright infringement suit against Defendant no.2., claiming that it
had acquired the copyright and other rights subsisting in the musical compositions from the
respective producers of the films, as they were the first owners of such copyright. The court accepted
the Plaintiff’s copyright ownership claims in the musical compositions, and stated that, since the
producers of the film had commissioned the musical works composed by Defendant no.2, the
producers were the first and rightful owners of such compositions. The court emphasised the
definition of the term ‘cinematograph film’, as defined in the Copyright Act, and stated that it is the
producer who puts together several elements to make a complete film. Therefore, only a producer
was legally vested with the authority to assign to third parties, the individual rights in each of these
separate elements.
The Madras High Court observed that, Defendant no.2 was unable to furnish the necessary evidence
 MEDIA LAW

to support the claims of authorship and subsequent ownership over the musical compositions. The
Plaintiff on the other hand was able to satisfy the court, by submitting the agreements between the
plaintiff and the respective producers to substantiate the claims of ownership of copyright made by
the Plaintiff. As a result of this, the order was decided in favour of the plaintiff, and the claims of
Defendant no.2 were dismissed.

HT Media Limited and Ors. vs. www.theworldnews.net and Ors., Delhi High Court,
MANU/DE/0563/2020

The plaintiffs in this case were part of a media conglomerate which was also engaged in the business
of publication of news articles, among other media related businesses. The multiple defendants in
this suit included the infringing website, which aggregated content and published the same from
various sources, and the entity managing this website (defendant nos.1 & 2), the German company
hosting the infringing website (defendant no.3), the privacy service provider (defendant no.4), the
erstwhile registrar of the infringing website (defendant no.5), and the internet service providers
(ISPs) (defendant nos.6-14), whose assistance the plaintiffs sought to block the concerned website.
The departments of the Government of India (defendant nos.15 & 16) were also impleaded as
defendants in this suit, since they were required to issue notifications with regard to blocking of the
impugned website. The plaintiffs conducted a private investigation through which it was discovered
that Defendants no.1 and 2 were reproducing and publishing content on the impugned website, that
originally belonged to the plaintiffs, without taking the required permission or prior authorization
from the plaintiffs, to allow such publication. The Defendant no.1 was also using the Plaintiffs’
copyright and registered trademarks on its website, due to which the Plaintiffs filed a suit alleging
copyright and trademark infringement, in addition to the claims of passing off, primarily by
Defendants no.1 and 2.
In light of the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the Delhi High Court observed that, while the
defendants in fact, did acknowledge and attribute to the Plaintiffs the articles published on the
impugned website, they however, did not provide a link to permit a user to directly access the article
on the Plaintiffs’ own website. The Plaintiffs submitted screenshots of the impugned website to
demonstrate the availability of large-scale infringing content. The evidence also reflected that the
impugned website had a bill payment option, which indicated that its activities were of a commercial
nature, thereby violating the statutory protection granted to the Plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights
under the respective laws.
After reviewing the evidence presented by the Plaintiffs, the court opined that since the Plaintiffs
were able to substantiate their claims with the evidence that they had presented and Defendants
no.1 to 5 did not make any attempt to appear in court or respond in any manner to the notices sent
to them, the order granted by the court would be ex-parte. In conclusion, the court decided in favour
of the Plaintiffs by granting a permanent injunction along with the damages, which were to be paid
by Defendants no.1 to 5.

Star India Pvt. Ltd. vs. moviestrunk.com and Ors., Delhi High Court, MANU/DE/0585/2020

This suit dealt with the issue of copyright infringement by various streaming websites
that continue to provide access to illegal content. In this present matter, the Plaintiff, which was in
the business of producing and distributing films, filed a copyright infringement suit against multiple
defendants, who ran different streaming websites, for illegally streaming the plaintiff’s film ‘Mission
Mangal’. The Plaintiff also included as defendants in the suit, those departments of the Government
of India, which issue notifications with regard to blocking of the impugned websites. Prior to the
 MEDIA LAW

release of the Plaintiff’s film ‘Mission Mangal’, the Plaintiff had conducted a private investigation into
the Defendants’ websites and submitted the findings of these investigations as evidence before the
court. The Plaintiff had confiscated infringing materials, including content which was made available
on the Defendants’ websites to download and view, without the required authorization from the
plaintiff, thereby making such content infringing.
The evidence presented to the court contained screenshots of all the Defendants’ websites that
showed the Plaintiff’s film being made available on the defendants’ websites for downloading and
streaming, prior to the official release date of the film. The Plaintiff also identified those internet
service providers (ISPs), who were providing services to the Defendants’ websites, following which
the Delhi High Court ordered these ISPs to block access to the Defendants’ websites and also ordered
the suspension of the Defendants’ domain names by the corresponding authority. Further, the court
directed the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and
Information Technology (MeitY) to issue a notification to any website that the Plaintiff notified to be
illegally transmitting or broadcasting the cinematograph film ‘Mission Mangal’ in any manner.
Since the court did not receive any response from majority of the Defendants to its notices, the order
was decided in favour of the Plaintiff, granting the injunction along with damages deemed
appropriate by the court.

Shivani Tibrewala vs. Rajat Mukherjee and Ors. (15.01.2020 – BOMHC): MANU/MH/0060/2020

J: S.J.Kathawalla

This case referred to the alleged infringement of the Plaintiff’s film script by the Defendant. The
Plaintiff had originally produced a play titled ‘The Laboratory’, following which the Plaintiff decided
to adapt the play into a film and accordingly wrote a new script for the film. Shortly after this, the
Defendant had released a film, titled ‘Umeed’, which also dealt with the issue of clinical trials, similar
to the Plaintiff’s play. Based on this similarity, the Plaintiff filed a copyright infringement suit against
the Defendant. After carefully examining the scripts of both, the Plaintiff’s the adaptation of the play
‘The Laboratory’ and the defendant’s film ‘Umeed’, and subsequently watching the Defendant’s film,
the Bombay High Court decided in favour of the Defendant. According to the court, while the
underlying idea behind both the scripts was the same, in that they both dealt with clinical trials, the
stories were however, narrated through completely different scenarios. The court has also noted
that, the Plaintiff has agreed to the differences in the script of the play and that of the Plaintiff’s own
film, which was inspired by the play. This indicated that there were several different ways to express
an idea.
In conclusion, the court held that, there could be no monopoly of copyright in the idea or subject of
a film based on the theme /subject of clinical trial which was a part of the public domain, and
dismissed the plaintiff’s case.

Giant Rocket Media And Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs Ms. Priyanka Ghatak And Ors., Delhi HC,
CS(COMM) 736/2019 J: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw

This case involved three defendants, wherein, Defendant no.1 was a scriptwriter, Defendant no.2 was
a production house and Defendant no.3, was a retired Joint Commissioner, Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) and the author of the book “CBI Insider Speaks: Birlas to Sheila Dikshit”, from
which, chapter no.7 was to be adapted by the Plaintiff into a web-series. The Plaintiff claimed that
Defendant no.2 along with help of Defendants no. 1 and 3, had infringed upon the Plaintiff’s idea to
adapt the aforementioned chapter no.7 of, into a web-series, for which the Plaintiff had previously
sought the rights, from Defendant no.3. Chapter no.7 from the book, was based on the true story of
 MEDIA LAW

the murder of Syed Modi, who was an eight- time national badminton champion. The court stated
that the primary issue in this case was whether the chapter itself, as written by Defendant no.3,
fulfilled the originality of expression requirement of the Copyright Act. In the court’s opinion, since
the story covered in chapter no.7 was a true story, it was already a part of the public domain, due to
which it may not have qualified as copyrightable work.
Based on this observation, the Delhi High Court held that, since the story mentioned in chapter no.7
was not a fictional story, and was merely the narration of the crime and its prosecution, the Plaintiff
did not have sufficient grounds to claim exclusive rights over the contents of chapter no.7, of the
book, written by Defendant no.3. Each of the scripts belonging to the Plaintiff and Defendant no.2
respectively, narrated their own versions of this true crime story. In light of the aforementioned facts,
the court concluded that, while the Plaintiff did not have a prima facie case for interim relief,
Defendants no. 1 and 2 also did not act in a fair manner. In addition to this, the evidence provided
was insufficient to show that the balance of convenience lay with the Plaintiff. As a result of this, the
court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal for an injunction against the web-series released by Defendant
no.2, and vacated the ex-parte ad-interim order.

Conclusion
The media is critical to the country's governance and overall growth. The same has been
emphasized on several occasions in the past whether it be the Emergency era of 1975 or
today’s era of widespread protest of Farmer, CAA-NRC etc. Numerous media outlets are
doing admirable work by disseminating true and reliable facts to the populace. A few
months ago, the Supreme Court took cognizance in response to the controversial Farm Bills
passed by the Union government.

On the other hand, it has been repeatedly highlighted that many media outlets do not prioritize
verifying information firstly and instead prioritize delivering it as quickly as possible for their
‘breaking news’ and commercial advertisements in gaining TRP. Due to a variety of factors, including
the sponsorship of media outlets by large corporations and politicians, ethical practices of media
have been undermined in the past and at the present.

Additionally, it has been found that, while concentrating on critical issues such as education, health
and economy, these type of media channels concentrate on trivial matters which are irrelevant to
the context of political upliftment of our society. Mechanisms such as ‘letters to the editor’ and
columns by media watchdogs maintain the media's transparency and also contribute to the press's
reputation marginally. Additionally, autonomous regulators that are not subject to the government
may be appointed to regulate/ track media houses.