Editors Pick

Delhi High Court DB Refuses To Stay DU Photocopy Judgment

Vidushi Sahani
6 Oct 2016 8:51 AM GMT
Delhi High Court DB Refuses To Stay DU Photocopy Judgment
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

In yet another turn of events in the DU Photocopy case, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court has refused to stay the Judgment delivered by Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw . The appeal has however been admitted and is posted for hearing on November 29th.

According to the SpicyIP report, after a round of contentions between lawyers for both sides, the two judge bench of Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice Pratibha Rani admitted the appeal and said they would hear all arguments on merit on the 29th but refused to issue any restraining order against the Judgment.

Justice Nandrajog has however asked the Photocopier to maintain accounts in relation to all the course packs it makes in the interim.

A group of international publishing houses and publisher associations had filed an appeal against the Delhi High Court judgement that rejected their plea against sale of photocopies of their textbooks. The High Court had also lifted a ban on the photocopy shop located on the Delhi University campus from selling photocopies of chapters from textbooks of some international publishers to the students.

The 94-page landmark IP ruling delivered on 16th September, banked on the observation that section 52(1) (i) of the Copyright Act is broad enough to cover the acts of photocopying and the creation of course packs by University for its students.

Copyright, specially in literary works, is thus not an inevitable, divine, or natural right that confers on authors the absolute ownership of their creations. It is designed rather to stimulate activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public. Copyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors in order to benefit the public”, Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw observed in the Judgment.

Read the petition here.

This article has been made possible because of financial support from Independent and Public-Spirited Media Foundation.

Next Story