Summary
The Court set aside an interim order replacing advance broadcast particulars under the Copyright Rules with routine reporting up to fifteen days afterwards. Although courts may review and invalidate legislation or rules on proper grounds, they cannot rewrite their terms to create a regime considered more workable. The High Court had converted an exceptional reporting provision into the norm and extended its time limit. The merits of the broadcasters’ pending constitutional and ultra vires challenge were expressly left undecided.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could replace the prescribed broadcast-notice requirements with a different interim reporting regime.
- Whether the underlying validity challenge should be determined in these appeals.
Provisions considered
- Section 31-D(2), Copyright Act, 1957The statutory scheme required prior notice in the prescribed manner, stating duration and territorial coverage, together with royalties in the prescribed manner and at the fixed rate. The interlocutory regime could not supplant that framework. (¶¶ 8, 9, 20, 21, 22)
- Rule 29(1)–(4), including provisos to Rule 29(1), Copyright Rules, 2013The High Court could not convert exceptional post-broadcast reporting into routine compliance or enlarge the exceptional twenty-four-hour period to fifteen days by judicial redrafting. (¶¶ 12, 14, 20, 21, 22)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaJudicial review permits scrutiny of validity but does not authorise replacement of statutory language with a newly designed regulatory regime, particularly through an interim order. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
Held
- The interim order retained prior notice in name but allowed essential broadcast particulars and royalty details to be supplied after broadcast, routinely within fifteen days. It therefore substituted a regime of the High Court’s own making for the rule and its limited exception. (¶¶ 2, 12, 14, 20, 21, 22)
- Interpretation cannot add to or remove clear statutory terms to achieve a court’s preferred policy. The power to invalidate unconstitutional or ultra vires provisions is distinct from judicially redrafting them. The perceived operational difficulties did not justify that substitution. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
- The appeals concerned the interim order alone. It was set aside without expressing any view on the merits of the pending challenges to Rule 29(4), which remained for the High Court’s determination. The assurance of prompt counter-affidavits was recorded to facilitate early disposal. (¶¶ 6, 19, 22, 23, 24)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court interim order set aside. Merits of the pending validity challenge expressly left open; pending applications disposed of.