Summary
The Supreme Court rejected the challenge to section 70 of the Information Technology Act and the 2002 notification protecting Kerala’s FRIENDS system. Section 70 was to be read with the Copyright Act’s government-work provisions, which constrained its operation; the 2009 amendment further restricted the power rather than supplying its first limits. On his own pleadings, the developer had undertaken the work for Microsoft for consideration and could not sustain his asserted copyright. Competing rights between Microsoft and the State or C-DIT were not determined.
Issues
- Whether the protected-system power involved unguided excessive delegation.
- Whether the 2009 amendment showed that the earlier power lacked limits.
- Whether the appellant’s asserted copyright invalidated the FRIENDS notification.
Held
- Section 70 could not be construed independently of the Copyright Act’s sections 2(k) and 17 concerning government work and ownership. Read conjointly, the provisions manifested constraints on declaring a protected system and answered the excessive-delegation challenge. (¶¶ 11, 19)
- The 2009 amendment limited declaration to computer resources directly or indirectly affecting the defined critical information infrastructure. It narrowed the power further, rather than introducing governing parameters for the first time. (¶¶ 15, 16, 20)
- The appellant pleaded that Microsoft entrusted him with development and paid consideration. On that pleaded case and the contractual arrangement discussed, his assertion of first ownership could not sustain the notification challenge. The Court expressly left unadjudicated any competing rights between Microsoft and the State or C-DIT because those were not the issue before it. (¶¶ 13, 17, 18, 21, 22)
Result
Appeal dismissed and High Court orders affirmed; parties to bear their own costs. Inter-party copyright rights between Microsoft and the State/C-DIT were not resolved.