Holding

The judgments themselves are not protectable, but the headnotes, footnotes and other editorial inputs that involve skill, labour and minimal creativity are protected by copyright.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined whether the copy‑edited versions of Supreme Court judgments published in the law report "Supreme Court Cases" (SCC) qualify as original literary works eligible for copyright. It held that the judgments themselves are government works in the public domain and their reproduction does not infringe copyright under Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act. However, the Court found that the headnotes, footnotes, paragraph numbering and the classification of judges' opinions involve sufficient skill, labour and a minimal degree of creativity to attract copyright protection. Consequently, the respondents were enjoined from copying these specific editorial elements in their CD‑ROM products. The appeals were partly allowed and the contempt petition was disposed.

Issues considered

What is the standard of originality required for a derivative work such as a copy‑edited judgment?
Whether the Supreme Court judgments are government works and thus in the public domain under Section 2(k) and Section 17 of the Copyright Act
Whether Section 52(1)(q)(iv) bars any copyright claim over the reproduced judgments
Whether the headnotes, footnotes, paragraph numbering and classification of judges' opinions constitute original literary work
Whether the respondents' CD‑ROMs infringe any copyright subsisting in the appellants' editorial inputs

Legislation cited

Copyright Act, 1957s. 13, s. 14, s. 17, s. 2(k), s. 2(o), s. 2(y), s. 51, s. 52(1)(q)(iv)

Subjects

copyrightoriginalityderivative workgovernment workpublic domainheadnotesfootnotesparagraph numberingjudicial opinionsSection 52Section 13Section 14Section 17

Judgment

A EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS.
v. r-
D.B. MODAK & ANR.
'
DECEMBER 12, 2007
B (B.N. AGRAWAL AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.)

Indian Copyright Act, 1957,' Ss.2 (k), 13, 17 and 52: ..,,_
Copyright in Law Report- Publishing ofcopy edited version
ofjudgments, order and proceedings ofSupreme Court by appellant
c
- Copying by respondents - Claim of copyright in the publication/
published work - Held: Originaliiy in work is a requirement of
copyright - It is a right to stop others from exploiting the work of
owner without his consent - There is no copyright in the facts per
D se -All literary works have to be original/primary workfor claiming
such protection - However, derivative/secondary work would qualifY
for claiming such protection provided skill, labour and capital
involved in its creation and creativity in the end product is such as
to create a new work so as to make the creator of derivative work
E author of it - The Courts have only to evaluate as to whether the
derivative work involved substantial amount of skill labour and
capital and need not to evaluate the creative aspect of the same -
Law Report of Supreme Court Judgments is derivative work -
Reproduction ofjudgments in public domain do not infringe the
F copyright - Innovative thoughts are necessary to establish copyright
in the judgments - Copy-edited judgments would not satisfY the
claim ofcopyright merely by establishing the amount ofskill, labour
and capital put in the inputs ofthe copy editedjudgments excluding
innovative thoughts for creativity - But it should be such and
G sufficient to import to the judgments printed, some quality which
original judgment does not possess and which differentiate the
original judgment from the one printed in the Report - Though
..
appellants improved the readability ofjudgment of the copy-edited
iudgment by doing considerable labour etc. but that does not meet
H 182
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 183
D.B. MOD AK & ANR.
the minimum requirement of creativity required for claiming A
copyright in it - However, creation ofparagraph and classification
of opinion ofjudges would require extensive reading and careful
study ofthe subject- It also requires considerable knowledge, sound
iudgment and legal skill - Hence, appellants have copyright in it -
Respondents are directed not to use the paragraphs and B
classification ofJudges' opinion as in the Report.

Copyright Act - Object and scope of - Dtscussed.
Principles:
c
Principle of copyright - Applicability of
Supreme Court Judgments - Owner of for the purpose of
copyright - Held: Government is the first owner of the copyright
in the judgment.
D
Words and Phrases:
'Copyright Protection' - Meaning of in the context of
Copyright Protection Act, 1957.
Literary works - Classification of E
'Original work' and 'derivative work' -Meaning of
Appellant is the publisher of a law report publishing therein
orders, practice directions, record of proceedings, short judgments
and Judgments of the Supreme Court of India. After the initial F
procurement of the judgments, orders and proceedings for
publication from the Registrar, Supreme Court of India, the
appellants make copy-editing of the judgments, orders and record
of proceedings procured and various inputs are put in the
judgments and orders by making an addition of cross-references, G
formatting of the text, paragraph numbering, verification etc. to
make them user friendly. The appellants also prepare the
headnotes, which require considerable amount of skill, labour
and expertise. And for the said work a substantial amount of
H
184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A capital expenditure on infrastructure, such as office equipments,
computers and for maintaining extensive library, besides recurring
expenditure on both the management of human resources and
infrastructural maintenance has been made by the appellants.
Appellants alleged that the Law Report, so prepared, constitutes
B an 'original literary work' in which copyright subsists in terms of
Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and thus the appellants
alone have the exclusive right to m2ke printed as well as electronic ,_
copies of the same under Section 14 of the Act. Any scanning or
copying or reproduction done of or from the Reports or pages or
C paragraphs or portions of any volume of the Report by any other
person, is an infringement of the copyright in the Report within
the meaning of Section 51 oftheAct. Appellants further alleged
that respondent No. 2, another publisher, has brought out a
software called "Grand Jurix" published on CD-ROMs and the
D other respondent, also a publisher, has brought out software
package called "The Laws" published on CD-RO Ms; and that all
the modules in the respondents' software packages have already
been lifted verbatim from their work; copied the sequencing,
selection and arrangement of the cases coupled with the entire
E
text of copy-edited judgments as published in the Law Report,
along with and including the style and formatting, the copy-editing
paragraph numbers, footnote numbers, cross-references, etc.; and
such acts of the defendant-respondents constitute infringement
F of the appellants' exclusive right to the same. The appellants
J
moved the High Court for issuance of temporary injunction by
filing applications in the Suit against the respondents. Single Judge
of the High Court dismissed the applications for interim injunction.
However, before the Single Judge, the respondents conceded
G that the appellants have copyright in the headnotes and as such
they undertook not to copy these headnotes in their CD-RO Ms.
Aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge of the High Court
refusing to grant interim injunction, the appellants preferred
appeals before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and the
H applications praying for interim relief were also filed in both the
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 185
D.B. MODAK&ANR.
appeals. The applications praying for the interim relief were A
disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court directing
that during pend ency of the appeals the respondents would be
entitled to sell their CD-RO Ms with the text of the judgment of
the Supreme Court along with their own headnotes which should
not in any way be a copy of the headnotes and the text of the B
plaintiff-appellants. Disposing of the matter, the Division Bench
y
of the Delhi High Court held that the appellants were not the
author of the Supreme Court judgments and by merely making
certain corrections therein or giving paragraph numbers, the
character of a judgment does not change and it does not become C
materially different from the original judgment; that once a person
has a right to obtain certified copy of the judgment from the
Registry of the Court and to publish it, it cannot be said that
others have no right to take text of the judgment from the journal
where it is already reported; that the act of reproduction of any D
judgment or order of the Court, Tribunal or any other judicial
authority under Section 52(1 )(q) of the Copy Right Act, is not an
infringement of the copyright. Any person can, therefore, publish
judgments of the Courts, however, there would be copyright in the E
headnotes to the judgments prepared by the appellants. So far
as footnotes and editorial notes are concerned, it cannot be denied
that these are the publisher's own creations and based on
publisher's own research and, thus, will have a copyright of the
appellants. Hence, the Division Bench modified the judgment of F
the Single Judge by allowing the respondents to sell their CD-
ROMs with the text of the judgments of the Supreme Court along
with their own headnotes, editorial notes, if any, which should not
in any way be copy of the headnotes of the appellants. Thus, the
High Court has not accepted the case of the appellants that they G
have a copyright in the copy-edited judgments of the Supreme
Court. Hence the present appeals and the Contempt Petition.
In the present case, the questions which require
determination by the Court were as to what shall be the standard
H
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.

A of originality in the copy-edited judgments of the Supreme Court
which is a derivative work and what would be required in a
derivative work to treat it the original work of an author and
thereby giving a protected right under the Copyright Act, 1957 to
the author of the derivative work and as to whether the appellants
B would be entitled for a copyright as an original literary work in
the entire version of the copy-edited text of the judgments
published in the appellants' law report or as to whether the
appellants would be entitled to the copyright in some of the inputs
which have been put in the raw text.
c
Appellants contended that the copyright subsists as a law
report in their publication 'SCC' as a whole based cumulatively
and compendiously on all the substantial contributions of skill,
labour and capital in the creation of various parts of the Report;
D that the copyright subsists in the copy-edited version; that they
do not claim copyright in the raw text of the judgments, certified
copies of which are being obtained from the Registry; that they
do not claim a monopoly in publishing judgments of the Supreme
Court as they are being published by other publishers also without
E copying from each other publication; that their copyright is in the
copy-edited version of the text of judgments as published in sec
which is a creation of their skill, labour and capital and there are
contributions/inputs/ additions in creating the version of the text
of judgments as published in the report; that Section 52(1)(q)(iv)
F of the Act does not bar the recognization of copyright in the copy- r
edited version of the text of judgments of the courts as published
in law reports; that the Government is the first owner of copyright
in the judgments of the courts as per Section 2(k) read with Section
17 and Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Act provides that any person
G wanting to reproduce or publish judgments would not infringe the
copyright of the Government, but Section 52(1)(q)(iv) does not
imply that in case a person has expended independent skill, ...
labour and capital on the judgments of the courts to create and
publish his version of the judgments, any other person is free to
H
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 187
D.B. MODAK&ANR.
copy that person's version of the judgments, substantially or in its A
entirely; that Copyright subsists in the copy-edited version of the
text of judgments of the courts as published in law reports, which
have been created by the application of skill, labour and capital
which is not trivial or negligible; that the inputs put in the copy-
edited judgments in SCC, is a derivative literary work created B
from pre-existing material of the judgments ofthe court which is
in public domain; that the exercise of independent skill, labour
and capital in its creation by the author of such work, and the
derivative literary work so created is by their independent skill,
labour and capital, which gives them copyright in such creations; C
that it is not necessary that work created should have a literary
merit; that the courts can only evaluate whether the skill, labour
and capital actually employed, required in creating the work, is
not trivial or negligible; that in deciding whether a derivative
work qualifies for copyright protection, it must be considered as D
a whole, and it is not correct to dissect the work into fragments
and consider the copyrightability of each such fragment piecemeal
and individually apart from the whole; and that the respondents
if wish to reproduce or publish a work already in public domain E
was obliged to go to the public domain/common source of such
work rather than misappropriating the effort and investment of
the appellants by copying the version of such work which was
created by them by their independent expenditure of skill, labour
and capital.
i F
Respondent submitted that the judgment of the court is a
Government work as defined under Section 2(k)(iii) of the Act;
that on account of Section.17 (d) of the Act, the Government in
the absence of any agreement to the contrary be the first owner
of the copyright therein; that in terms of Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of G
the Act, publication of the judgments of the apex court by the
respondents would not tantamount to infringement of the copyright
of the appellants; that the judgments published in the Supreme
Court Cases is nothing but merely a derivative work based upon
H
I

:f-
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A the judgments of the court, which lacks originality as it does not
depict independent creation even a modicum of creativity; that
the inputs put by the appellants is nothing but expressing an idea
which can be expressed in a limited way and as such there cannot
be a copyright in it; that filling the blanks or gaps by providing
B names of the parties or citations of the judgments, both of which
are well known and unchangeable parts of that idea, are not original
work to warrant copyright protection, either singly or in
combination; and that the additions made in the reported judgment
by the editors of the Report are only the well known extensions
C of the reported decision. These extensions lack even the minimal
degree of author's creativity or originality or intellectual labour
nor does it create additional knowledge, the protection of which
is the very basis of the copyright protection.
D Respondents in the connected Civil Appeal submitted that
there is a distinction between a 'law report' as understood in
England and a 'law journal' as printed in India; thatthe appellants'
journal 'SCC' is not a law report in the strict sense, inasmuch as
it reproduces the judgments of the court verbatim along with
E inputs. However, a law report known in the traditional English
sense is when a law reporter present in the court would record in
his own words and language the arguments of the counsel on both
sides, give a summary of the facts and incorporate into the said
report his transcript of the speech of the Judge. Thus, the
F appellants' work could only be a law journal and not a law report;
that the judgments were specifically made a part of the exception '
to copyrigh1 infringement and thus find place in Section 52(1)(q)
of the Act; that for claiming protection of copyright in a derivative
work, under the Indian law originality is a pre-condition and
G originality means only that the work was independently created
by the author as opposed to copied from other works, and that it
possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity; that reporting
of the judgments of the Supreme Court with certain inputs could
only be said to be a discovery of facts already in existence; that
H
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 189
D.B. MODAK&ANR.
to create a copyright by alterations of the text, these must be A
extensive and substantial practically making a· new version; that
the copy-editing inputs of the appellants are only discoveries/
facts and there are limited ways/unique of expressing the various
copy-editing inputs and thus no copyright can subsist in such
limited/unique expressions; that the facts which are discovered B
could be expressed in limited ways and as such ways adopted
cannot give copyright protection to the inputs or the judgments as
a whole; that recognizing the copyright in the copy-edited version
of the law reports would amount to giving the appellants a monopoly
in the judgments of the courts which is against the intendment of C
Section 52(1)(q)(iv) and would defeat the purpose of putting
judgments in the public domain; that for a derivative work, the
originality test as applied in United States Supreme Court should
be made applicable whereby the author of a derivative work would
satisfy that the work bas been produced from his exercise of skill D
and judgment; and that the exercise of skill and judgment required
to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be
characterized a purely mechanical exercise. The work should be
independently created by the author as opposed to copied from E
the other works and that it possesses at least some minimal degree
of creativity.
Partly allowing the appeals, and disposing of the Contempt
Petition, the Court
F
HELD: 1.1. The copyright protection finds its justification
in fair play. When a person produces something with his skill
and labour, it normally belongs to him and the other person
w.ould not be permitted to make a profit out of the skill and
labour of the original author and it is for this reason the G
Copyright Act gives to the authors certain exclusive rights in
relation to the certain work referred in the Act. The object of
the Act is to protect the author of the copyright work from an
unlawful reproduction or exploitation of his work by others.
(Para - 8) (229-D-E-F] H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A 1.2. Copyright is a right to stop others from exploiting the
work without the consent or assent of the owner of the copyright.
A copyright law presents a balance between the interests and
rights of the author and that of the public in protecting the public
domain, or to claim the copyright and protect it under the copyright
B statute. One of the key requirements is that of originality which
contributes, and has a direct nexus, in maintaining the interests
of the author as well as that of public in protecting the matters
in public domain. It is a well-accepted principle of copyright law
that there is no copyright in the facts per se, as the facts are not
C created nor have they originated with the author of any work
which embodies these facts. (Para - 8) (229-F-G-H; 230-A)
1.3. For copyright protection, all literary works have to be
original as per Section 13 of the Act. Broadly speaking, there
D would be two classes of literary works : (a) primary or prior
works: These are the literary works not based on existing subject-
matter and, therefore, would be called primary or prior works;
and (b) secondary or derivative works: These are literary works
based on existing subject-matter. Since such works are based on
E existing subject-matter, they are called derivative work or
secondarywork. (Para-13)(234-F-G)
2. In many cases, a work is derived from an existing work.
Whether in such a derivative work, a new copyright work is
F created, will depend on various factors, and would one of them be
only skill, capital and labour expended upon it to qualify for
copyright protection in a derivative literary work created from
the pre-existing material in the public domain, and the required
exercise of independent skill, labour and capital in its creation by
G the author would qualify him for the copyright protection in the
derivative work. Or would it be the creativity in a derivative work
in which the final position will depend upon the amount and value
of the corrections and improvements, the independent skill and
labour, and the creativity in the end-product is such as to create
H a new copyright work to make the creator of the derivative work
-~,
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 191
D.B. MODAK&ANR.

-i
the author of it; and if not, there will be no new copyright work A
and then the original author will remain the author of the original
work and the creator of the derivative work will have been the
author of the alterations or the inputs put therein, for their nature
will not have been such as to attract the protection under the law
of copyright. (Para -14) [235-G-H; 236-A-B-C] B
3.1. In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the
_,
Government shall be the first owner of the copyright in the
judgments of the Supreme Court, the same being a Government
work in terms of Section 2(k) of the Act. (Para - 13) [235-C-D]
c
3.2. The judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court would
be in the public domain and its reproduction or publication would
not infringe the copyright. The reproduction or publication of the
judgments delivered by the Supreme Court by any number of
persons would not be infringement of a copyright of the first D
i owner thereof, namely, the Government, unless it is prohibited.
(Para -13) (235-E-F)
4.1. The reports in the Supreme Court Cases (SCC) of the
judgments of the Supreme Court is a derivative work in public
domain. (Para-38) [257-H; 258-A] E

4.2. The judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court would
be in the public domain and its reproduction or publication would
not infringe the copyright. That being the position, the copy-
edited judgments would not satisfy the copyright merely by F
establishing amount of skill, labour and capital put in the inputs
of the copy-edited judgments and the original or innovative
thoughts for the creativity are completely excluded. Accordingly,
original or innovative thoughts are necessary to establish copyright
in the author's work. The principle where there is common source G
the person relying on it must prove that he actually went to the
~
common source from where he borrowed the material, employing
his own skill, labour and brain and he did not copy, would not
apply to the judgments of the courts because there is no copyright
in the judgments of the court, unless so made by the court itself. H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A (Para - 38) [258-B-C-D-E]

4.3. To secure a copyright for the judgments delivered by
the court, it is necessary that the labour, skill and capital invested
should be sufficient to communicate or impart to the judgment
B printed in the Report, SCC, some quality or character which the
original judgment does not possess and which differentiates the
original judgment from the printed one. The Copyright Act is not
concerned with the original idea but with the expression of thought.
Copyright has nothing to do with originality or literary merit.
c Copyrighted material is that what is created by the author by his
own skill, labour and investment of capital, maybe it is a derivative
work which gives a flavour of creativity. The copyright work
which comes into being should be original in the sense that by
virtue of selection, co-ordination or arrangement of pre-existing
D data contained in the work, a work somewhat different in character
is produced by the author. On the face of the provisions of the
1957 Act, the principle laid down by the Canadian Court would be
applicable in copyright of the judgments of the Apex Court. It is
clarified that the decision of this Court would be confined to the
E judgments of the courts which are in the public domain as by
virtue of Section 52 of the Act there is no copyright in the original
text of the judgments. (Para - 38) [258-E-F-G-H; 259-A]
Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. Inc., 18
USPQ 2d. 1275; Key Publications, Inc. v. Chinatown Today
F
Publishing Enterprises, Inc., 945 F.2d.509; Macmillan and
Company v. K. and J Cooper, 1924 Privy Council 75; CCH
Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 (1)
SCR 339 (Canada) - referred to.
G 5.1. No doubt the appellants have collected the material and
improved the readability of the judgment by putting inputs in the
original text of the judgment by considerable labour and arranged
it in their own style, but that does not give the flavour of minimum
requirement of creativity. The exercise of the skill and judgment
H
I

,,
t EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 193
D.B.MODAK&ANR.
required to produce the work is trivial and is on account of the A
.., labour and the capital invested and could be characterized as
purely a work which has been brought about by putting some
amount of labour by the appellants. Although for establishing a
copyright, the creativity standard applies is not that something
must be novel or non-obvious, but some amount of creativity in B
the work to claim a copyright is required. It does require a minimal
degree of creativity. Arrangement of the facts or data or the case
law is already included in the judgment of the court. Therefore,
creativity of the Report, SCC, would only be addition of certain
facts or material already published, case law published in another c
law report and its own arrangement and presentation of the
judgment of the court in its own style to make it more user-
friendly. The selection and arrangement can be viewed as typical
and at best result of the labour, skill and investment of capital
lacking even minimal creativity. It does not as a whole display D
sufficient originality so as to amount to an original work of the
author. (Para-40) (260-E-F-G-H; 261-A-B]
5.2. Novelty or invention or innovative idea is not the
requirement for protection of copyright but it does require minimal E
degree of creativity. The inputs put by the appellants in the copy-
edited judgments do not touch the standard of creativity required
for the copyright. (Para- 40) [261-C-D]
5.3. The task of paragraph numbering and internal
F
\ referencing requires skill and judgment in great measure. The
editor who inserts para numbering must know how legal
argumentation and legal discourse is conducted and how a judgment
of a court of law must read. Often legal arguments or conclusions
are either clubbed into one paragraph in the original judgment or
G
parts of the same argument are given in separate paragraphs. It
requires judgment and the capacity for discernment for determining
whether to carve out a separate paragraph from an existing
paragraph in the original judgment or to club together separate
paragraphs in the original judgment of the court. Setting of H

/
../
'
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.

A paragraphs by the appellants of their own in the judgment entailed
the exercise of the brain work, reading and understanding of
r-
subject of disputes, different issues involved, statutory provisions
applicable and interpretation of the same and then dividing them
in different paragraphs so that chain of thoughts and process of
B statement of facts and the application of law relevant to the topic
discussed is not disturbed, would require full understanding of the
entire subject of the judgment. Making paragraphs in a judgment
could not be called a mechanical process. It requires careful
consideration, discernment and choice and thus it can be called as
C a work of an author. (Para - 41) [261-F-G-H; 262-A-B]
5.4. Creation of paragraphs would obviously require
extensive reading, careful study of subject and the exercise of
judgment to make paragraph which has dealt with particular aspect
D of the case, and separating intermixing of a different subject.
Creation of paragraphs by separating them from the passage
would require knowledge, sound judgment and legal skill. This
exercise and creation thereof has a flavour of minimum amount
of creativity. The said principle would also apply when the editor
E has put an input whereby different Judges' opinion has been shown
to have been dissenting or partly dissenting or concurring, etc. It
also requires reading of the whole judgment and understanding
the questions involved and thereafter finding out whether the
Judges have disagreed or have the dissenting opinion or they are
F partially disagreeing and partially agreeing to the view on a
particular law point or even on facts. In these inputs put in by
the appellants in the judgments reported in the Report, the
appellants have a copyright and nobody is permitted to utilize the
same. (Para - 41) (262-B-C-D-E]
G
6. The High Court has already granted interim relief to the
plaintiff-appellants. It is further directed that the defendant-
respondents shall not use the paragraphs made by the appellants .
in their copy-edited version for internal references and their
H editor's judgment regarding the opinions expressed by the Judges
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 195
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
by using phrases like 'concurring', 'partly dissenting', etc. on the A
basis of reported judgments in SCC. The judgment of the High
Court is modified to the extent that in addition to the inkrim
relief already granted by the High Court. (Para - 42) (262-F;
G-H; 263-A)
B
7. In view of the decision so rendered, it is not necessary to
pass any order on the contempt petition. The contempt petition
stands disposed of accordingly. (Para - 43) (263-B)
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6472
of2004. C
From the final Judgment and Order dated 27.9.2002 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO (OS) No. 43 and 45/2001.
WITH
D
C.A. No. 6905 of2004 and Contempt Petition (C) No. 158 of
2006 in C.A. No. 6472 of2004.
Raju Ramachandran, Sudeep Mallik,Anitha Shenoy, Saurab Sinha,
RishadAhmad Chowdhury, Raj Shekhar Rao, M.R. Vij, Nitin Ramesh,
Samar Bansal, S.K. Mohanty, Lokesh Kumar, M.K. Garg, Pratibha M. E
Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Bishwajit Dubey, Shruti Kakker, Sumeet Bhatia
and Maninder Singh for the Appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P.P. NAOLEKAR, J. 1. These appeals by special leave have F
been preferred against the common judgment of a Division Bench ofthe
High Court ofDelhi involving the analogous question and are, therefore,
decided together by this judgment.
2. Appellant No. 1 - Eastern Book Company is a registered G
partnership firm carrying on the business of publishing law books.
Appellant No. 2- EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. is a company incorporated
and existing under the Companies Act, 1956. The said appellants are
involved in the printing and publishing of various books relating to the
field oflaw. One of the well-known publications of appellant No. 1 - H
'
t
196 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [2007] 13(Addl.)S.C.R.

A Eastern Book Company is the law report "Supreme Court Cases"
(hereinafter called "SCC"). The appellant publishes all reportable
judgments along with non-reportable judgments of the Supreme Court
of India. Yet another category included in SCC is short judgments,
orders, practice directions and record of proceedings. The law report
B SCC was commenced in the year 1969 and has been in continuous
publication ever since. The name "Supreme Court Cases" has been
coined by the appellants and they have been using the same continuously,
exclusively and extensively in relation to the law reports published by
them. For the purpose of publishing the judgments, orders and
C proceedings of the Supreme Court, the copies ofjudgments, orders and
proceedings are procured from the office of the Registrar of the Supreme
Court ofIndia After the initial procurement of the judgments, orders and
, proceedings for publication, the appellants make copy-editing wherein
the judgments, orders and record of proceedings procured, which is the
D raw source, are copy-edited by a team of assistant staff and various
inputs are put in the judgments and orders to make them user friendly
by making an addition of cross-references, standardization or formatting
ofthe text, paragraph numbering, verification and by putting other inputs.
The appellants also prepare the headnotes comprising of two portions,
E
the short note consisting of catch/lead words written in bold; and the
long note, which is comprised of a brief discussion of the facts and the
relevant extracts from the judgments and orders ofthe Court Headnotes
are prepared by appellant No. 3-Surendra Malik. As per the said appellant
F (plaintiffNo. 3 in the suits filed in the Delhi High Court), the preparation
f
of the headnotes and putting the various inputs in the raw text of the
judgments and orders received from the Supreme Court Registry require
considerable amount of skill, labour and expertise and for the said work
a substantial amount of capital expenditure on the infrastructure, such as
G office, equipment, computers and for maintaining extensive library, besides
recurring expenditure on both the management ofhuman resources and
infrastructirral maintenance, is made by the plaintiff-appellants. As per
the appellants, sec is a law report which carries case reports comprising
of the appellants' version or presentation of those judgments and
H orders of the Supreme Court after putting various inputs in the raw
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 197
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
text and it constitutes an 'original literary work' of the appellants in A
-'1
which copyright subsists under Section 13 of the Copyright Act,
1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and thus the appellants
alone have the exclusive right to make printed as well as electronic
copies of the same under Section 14 of the Act. Any scanning or
copying or reproduction done of or from the reports or pages or B
paragraphs or portions of any volume of sec by any other person,
is an infringement of the copyright in sec within the meaning of
Section 51 of the Act.
3. The defendant-respondent No. 2 Spectrum Business Support c
Ltd. (in Civil Appeal No. 6472/2004) has brought out a software
called "Grand Jurix" published on CD-ROMs and the defendant-
respondent No. 2 Regent Data Tech Pvt. Ltd. (in Civil Appeal No.
6905/2004) has brought out software package called "The Laws"
published on CD-RO Ms. As per the appellants, all the modules in D
the defendant-respondents' software packages have been lifted
verbatim from the appellants' work; the respondents have copied the
appellants' sequencing, selection and arrangement of the cases
coupled with the entire text of copy-edited judgments as published
in the plaintiff-appellants' law report SCC, along with and including E
the style and formatting, the copy-editing paragraph numbers, footnote
numbers, cross-references, etc.; and such acts of the defendant-
respondents constitute infringement of the plaintiff-appellants'
exclusive right to the same.
F
4. The plaintiff-appellants herein moved the Court for temporary
injunction by filing applications in Suit No. 758/2000 against Spectrum
Business Support Ltd. and in Suit No. 624/2000 against Regent Data
Tech Pvt. Ltd. before a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi.
The interim orders of injunction were passed in the suits from time to (i
time. However, the defendant-respondents filed application for vacation
of the stay order. By a common judgment dated 17. l.2001, the Single
Judge oftlie High Court dismissed the appellants' applications for interim
injunction and allowed the respondents' application for v~cation of stay. H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.

A However, before the Single Judge, the respondents conceded that the
appellants have copyright in the headnotes and as such they undertook
not to copy these headnotes in their CD-RO Ms.
5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 17.1.2001 refusing to grant
B interim injunction, the appellants preferred appeals before a Division
Bench of the Delhi High Court and the applications praying for interim
relief were also filed in both the appeals. The applications praying for the
interim relief were disposed of by the Division Bench on 9.3.2001
directing that during the pendency of the appeals the respondents will be
c entitled to sell their CD-ROMs with the text of the judgment of the
Supreme Court along with their own head.notes which should not in any
way be a copy of the headnotes and the text of the plaintiff-appellants.
6. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court heard the matters
D finally and has held that the appellants are not right in submitting that
although the respondents have a right to publish the raw judgments
they could do so only after obtaining the same from the original
source, i.e. after obtaining certified copy of the judgment. The Division
Bench did not agree with the submission of the appellants that by
E making certain corrections in the judgments or putting paragraph
numbers or arranging the said judgments in a particular manner while
printing, the appellants can claim that the copy-edited judgments
become their 'original literary work'. If the right of a person like the
appellants who are merely reporting the judgments of the courts is
F stretched to this extent, then after a judgment is reported by a r
particular journal, others would be barred from doing the same and
the very purpose of making these judgments in public domain,
therefore, would be frustrated. The Court has further held that the
appellants are not the author of the Supreme Court judgments and
G by merely making certain corrections therein or giving paragraph
numbers, the character of a judgment does not change and it does
not become materially different from the original judgment. Once a
person has a right to obtain certified copy of the judgment from the
Registry of the Court and to publish it, it cannot be said that he has
H
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 199
D.B. MODAK&ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]

no right to take text of the judgment from the journal where it is A
already reported. The act of reproduction of any judgment or order
of the Court, Tribunal or any other judicial authority under Section
52( 1)( q) of the Act, is not an infringement of the copyright. Any
person can, therefore, publish judgments of the Courts. The appellants
may have happened to have first published the judgments, but the B
same will not mean that they can have a copyright therein. It is the
--, considered opinion of the Division Bench that no person can claim
copyright in the text of the judgment by merely putting certain inputs
to make it user friendly. The appellants cannot claim copyright in the
judgment of the Court. But it has been held by the Court that reading C
the judgment and searching the important portions thereof and
collecting sentences from various places for the purposes of making
headnotes would involve labour and skill; and that there is originality
and creativity in preparation of the headnotes, but not when they are D
verbatim extracts from the judgment and, therefore, there would be
copyright in the headnotes. to the judgments prepared by the
appellants. So far as footnotes and editorial notes are concerned, it
cannot be denied that these are the publisher's own creations and
based on publisher's own research and thus will have a copyright of E
the appellants. The Division Bench modified the judgment of the
Single Judge by directing the respondents that they shall be entitled
to sell their CD-ROMs with the text of the judgments of the Supreme
Court along with there own headnotes, editorial notes, if any, which
should not in any way be copy of the headnotes of the appellants. F
The respondents shall also not copy the footnotes and editorial notes
appearing in the journal of the appellants. Thus, the Court has not
accepted the case of the appellants that they have a copyright in the
copy-edited judgments of the Supreme Court. Aggrieved by the
decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court, the appellants (;
have filed these appeals by special leave.
7. The appellants have claimed that the copyright subsists in
sec as a law report as a whole based cumulatively and
compendiously on all the substantial contributions of skill, labour and H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A capital in the creation of various parts ofSCC, i.e., headnotes, editorial
notes, footnotes, the version of the copy-edited text ofjudgments as
published in the appellants' law report sec, the selection of cases
as published in sec, the sequence and arrangement of cases as
in
published SCC and the index, table of cases, etc. which are
B published in each volume ofSCC, that give it the SCC volumes and
thereby complete SCC set, its character as a work as a whole. The
appellants claim that the copyright subsists in the copy-edited version.
The appellants do not claim copyright in the raw text of the judgments,
certified copies of which are obtained from the Registry. The
c appellants do not claim a monopoly in publishing judgments of the
Supreme Court as they are being published by other publishers also
without copying from each other publication. The appellants claim
that their copyright is in the copy-edited version of the text of
judgments as published in sec which is a creation of the appellants'
D
skill, labour and capital and there are contributions/inputs/ additions
of the appellants in creating their version of the text ofjudgments as
•
published in SCC. The appellants placed before us the following
contributions, inputs and additions made by them to the text in the
.E certified copies of the judgments received by them from the Registry.
The appellants assert that originality inheres in the following aspects
of its editorial process which are selected, coordinated and arranged
in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an
original work of the appellants.
r
F MATTERADDEDPERSETOTHERAWTEXTOFTHE
JUDGMENTS
1. Cross-citations are added to the citations(s) already given
in the original text
G For example,
a. SCC/AIR/LLJ citations added in addition to the SCR
citation given in the text and cross-citations separated
by":"
H
I
' -

EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 201
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]

Raw text obtained sec Page: Corresponding A
from Registry: citations from
.
SCC Page:
R. Chitralakha and R. Chitralakha v. 388: AIR 1964 SC
Anr. v. State of State ofMysore and 1823 B
Mysore & Ors. 1964 Triloki Nath v. State
(1969) 1 SCR 103,
(6) SCR 368 at 388 ofJ & K (II) and K.
105:AIR 1969SC1:
and Triloki Nath v. C. Vasanth Kumar
(1970) 1 LLJ 629
J.& K State 1969 (1) v. State of
SCR 103at105 and Karnataka. . 1985 Supp sec 714: c
K.C. Vasanth Kumar (1964) 6 SCR 368, 1985 Supp 1 SCR
v. Karnataka 1985 352
Supp. (1) SCR 352

b. FCR, IA, Born LR citations added in addition to the AIR D
citation given in raw text and cross-citations separated by":"
Raw text obtained SCC Page: Corresponding
from Registry: citations from
sec Page:
E
Dr Hori Ram Singh Hori Ram Singh AIR 1939 FC 43:
vs.Emperor (Dr) v. Emperor, 1939 FCR 159
(AIR 1938 Gokulchand
AIR 1948 PC 82: 75
FC 43), Dwarkadas
IA30
Gokulchand Morarkav.
F
Dwarkadas R.,Shreekantiah AIR 1955 SC 287:.
Morarka vs. The Ramayya 57BomLR632
King (AIR 1948 Munipalli v. State
PC 82), of Bombay.
Shreekantiah
Ramayya Munipalli
vs. State of
Bombay (AIR 1955
SC 287)
H
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.

A 2. (a) Names of cases and cross-citations are added where
only the citation of the case is given in the original text.
For example,
Citation alone given in text replaced with full case name:
B "M.P. Oil Extraction (P) Ltd. v. State ofM.P." and Jab LJ cross-
citation added to AIR citation already in raw text, and separated
by":"
Raw text obtained sec Page: Corresponding
-
c from Registry: citations from
sec Page:
The said decision has The said decision AIR 1982 MP 1:
been reported in AIR has been reported in 1982 Jab LJ 795
1982 M.P. 1. MP. Oil Extraction
D (P) Ltd. v. State
of MP.
2(b). Citations and cross-citations are added where only
name of the case is given in the original text.
E For example
Name of case in text replaced with full case reference and cross-
citations added as per sec style.
Raw text obtained sec Page: Corresponding
F from Registry: citations from !

sec Page:
Division Bench ofthis Division Bench ofthis Kishan Lal Sharma v.
Court in Kishan Lal Court in Kishan Lal Prem Kishore, AIR
Sharma (supra). Sharma. 1983 Raj 100: 1983
G Raj LR 164
d) Among the (d) Among the
pensioners also, the pensioners also, the Janaki Prasad
above anomaly will above anomaly will Parimoo v. State of J '
prevail as pointed out prevail as pointed out & K, (1973) 1 sec
in Janaki Prasad. in Janaki Prasad. 420
H
I.
\

EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 203
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
2(c). Citation inserted in case-history where only the title A
and year of the impugned/earlier orders are given.
For example,

From the Judgment and Order dated June 17, 1980 of Gujarat
High Court in Special Civil Application No. 2711 of 1999: AIR 1981 B

Guj 15

'--------~~ Citation supplied by SCC
c

3. sec style of presenting (repeatedly) cited cases
For example,
D
Changes have been made in the name of the cited cases as per
SCC style as "Rattan Singh's case (supra)"; "Mohilmmad's case
(supra)" and "Range Forest Officer's case" in the raw text
consecutively changed to "Ratan Singh case"; "Mohammed case
and "Range Forest Officer case" in SCC. E
Raw text obtained sec Page:
from Registry:

In Rattan Singh's case (supra), 140. In Ratan Singh case the
the High Court of Madhya High Court of Madhya Pradesh F
Pradesh finding certain illegalities finding certain illegalities in the
in the prosecution relating to prosecution relating to setting
setting aside aside
In Mohammad's case (supra), 141. In Mohammed case, the G
the observation of the Kerela observations of the Kerela High
High Court that "ifa clear illegality Court that "if a clear illegality or
or injustice comes to the notice injustice comes to the notice of
of the High Court the High Court

H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A
In the third case relied on by 142. In the third case relied on
Justice M.K. Chawla, namely, by Justice M.K. Chawla, namely,
Range Forest Officer's case, a Range Forest Officer case a
vehicle belonging to the vehicle belonging to the
respondent was confiscated. respondent was confiscated.
B
* The changes have been
underlined.
4. Precise references to quoted matter are provided

C For example,
a. The exact page and paragraph number as in the original
case source is inserted.
Raw text obtained sec Page:
D from Registry:
In Balaji it is stated: In Balaji it is stated: (SCR
p. 458)
"It seems fairly clear that the "It seems fairly clear that the
E backward clas.ses of citizens for backward classes of citizens for
whom special provision whom special provision
After referring to the provisions After referring to the provisions
ofArticles 338(3), 340 (1),341 ofArticles 338(3), 340(1), 341
and 342, the Court proceeded and 342, the Court proceeded r
F to hold as follows: to hold as follows: (SCR p.458)
"It would thus be seen that this "It would thus be s~n that this
provision contempates that provision contemplates that
some Backward Classes may by some Backward Classes may by
G the Presidential order be the Presidential order be
included. included
It may be appropriate to quote It may be appropriate to quote
the relevant holding from the the relevant holding from the
judgment: judgment: (SCR pp.467, 470)
H
1.

EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 205
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.] ·
A
"When Art. 15(4) refers to the "When Article 15(4) refers to
special provision for the the special provision for the
advancement of certain classes advancement of certain classes
or scheduled castes or or Scheduled Castes and
scheduled tribes, it must not be Scheduled Tribes, it must not be
B
ignored that the provision which ignored that the provision which
is authorised to be made is authorised to be made
The Privy Council observed: "It The Privy Council observed:
may be well to add that their (IA p.302, para 17)
Lordships judgment does not
"It may be well to add that their
c
imply that every sum paid llllder
Lordships' judgment does not
mistake is recoverable
imply that every sum paid under
mistake is recoverable
*The changes have been D
highlighted
b. The exact page and paragraph number as in the original treatises/
reference material is inserted. ·
Raw text obtained SCC Page: E
from Registry:
is very instructive, is very instructive: (CAD, Vol.
7, pp. 701-02)
"Supposing, for instance,
reservations were made for a "Supposing, for instance, F
community or a collection of reservations were made for a
communities, the total of which community or a collection of
communities, the total ofwhich
is a community which is is a community which is
backward in the opinion of the backward in the opinion of the
Government". Government". (CAD, Vol. 7,
pp. 702)
* The changes have been
highlighted.
H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A 5. Margin headings are added to quoted extracts from
statutes/rules etc. when missing.
For example,
Section number and Margin Heading of the Section have been
B supplied.
Raw text obtained SCC Page:
from Registry:
deals with sovereignty over, and deals with sovereignty over, and
c limits of, territorial waters and limits of, territorial waters and
says: says:
"(l) The sovereignty of India "3. Sovereignty over, and
extends and has always limits of, territorial waters.-
extended to the territorial waters (!) The sover-eignty of India
D
of India (hereinafter referred to extends and has always
as the territorial waters) and to extended to the territorial waters
the seabed and subsoil of India (hereinafter referred to
underlying, and the air space as the territorial waters) and to
over such waters. the seabed and subsoil
E
underlying, and the air space
over such waters.
It says: It says:
"(l) All lands, minerals and "297. Things of value
F t
other things of value underlying within territorial waters or
the ocean within the territorial continental shelf and
waters, or the continental shelf, resources of the exclusive
or the exclusive economic zone, economic wne to vest in the
of India shall vest in the Union Union.- (1) All lands, minerals
G
and be held for the purpose of and other things of value
the Union. underlying the ocean within the
territorial waters, or the
continental shelf, or the exclusive
economic zone, oflndia shall
H
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 207
D.B. MODAK&ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]

vest in the Union and be held A
-1
'
for the purpose of the Union.
That article reads as under: That Article reads as under:
"19( 1) All citiz.ens shall have the "19. Protection of certain
right rights regarding freedom of B
speech, etc.- (1) All citizens
shall have the right
6. Number of the section/rule/article/paragraph is added to
the extract quoted in the original text c
For example,
The sub-section numbers have been added to the text.
Raw text obtained sec Page:
from Registry: D
The said provision reads as The said provision reads as
under: under:
"Where a landlord has acquired "13. (3-A) where a landlord has
his interest in the premises by acquired his interest in the E
transfer, no suit forthe recovery premises by transfer, no suit for
of possession of the premises the recovery of possession of
on any ofthe grounds mentioned the premises on any of the
in clause (f) or clause (ff) of grounds mentioned in clause (f)
or clause (ff) of F
The said sub-section reads as The said sub-section reads as
under: under:
"If, in the course of any trial "12. (2) If, in the course of
under this Act of any offence, it any trial under this Act of any
G
is found that the accused person offence, itis found that the accused
has committed any other offence person has committed any other
under this Act or any rule made offence under this Act or any rule
thereunder or under any made thereunder or under any
other law, other law,
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.

A
For convenie,nce, we reproduce For convenience, we reproduce
the sub-section here: the sub-section here:
"Any person who is a member "3. (5) Any person who is a
ofa terrorists gang or a terrorists member of a terrorists' gang or
B organization, which is a terrorists' organization, which
J.S
Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of
TADA reads thus: Sub-section (4) of Section 3 of
TADA reads thus:
"whoever harbours or conceals,
c or attempts to harbour or "3. (4) Whoever harbours or
conceal, any terrorist shall be conceals, or attempts to
punish-able with imprisonment harbour or conceal, any
for a term which shall not be terrorist shall be punish-able
less than five years but with imprison-ment for a term
D which shall not be less than five
years but
Section 2 (1) (i) of the TADA . Section2(1)(i)ofTADAwhich
which reads thus:- reads thus:
E
"Words and expressions used "2. (1) (i) words and
but not defined in this Act and expressions used but not defined
defined in the code shall have in this Act and defined in the
the meanings respectively Code shall have the meanings
assigned to them in the Code" respectively assigned to them in
F
the Code" t
Indian Penal Code by the
following words in clause y of Indian Penal Code by the
Section 2 of the Code: following words in clause 'y' of
Section 2 of the Code:
G "words and expressions used
herein and not defined but "2. (y) words and
defined in the Indian Penal Code expressions used herein and not
defined but defined in the Indian
Penal Code
H
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 209
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
7. Phrases like 'concurring', 'partly concurring', 'partly A
1 dissenting', 'dissenting', 'supplementing', 'majority expressing
no opinion' etc. are added to the original text.
For example,
Words like 'partly dissenting' and 'partly concl!fling' have been B
added as per the application of Editor's judgement regarding the
opinions expressed by the Judges.
Raw text obtained sec Page:
from Registry: c
D.P. WadhwaJ D. P. WADHWA, J.- (partly
I agree that the appeal be concurring) I agree that the
dismissed. However, I appeal be dismissed.
However, I
p
S.C.AGRAWALJ. AGRAWAL, J. (partly
dissenting) - Special leave
Special leave granted. granted.
KOSHAL,J. Koshal, J. (partly dissenting)
- On a perusal of the judgment E
On a perusal of the
judgment prepared by my prepared by my learned brother,
learned brother, Krishna Iyer, J., Krishna Iyer, J ., I agree
I agree respectfully with findings respectfully with findings (2) to
(2) to (11), (13) and (14) (11 ), (13) and (14) enumerated
by him F
enumerated by him
8. Judges on whose behalf opinion given: Expression such
as "for himself and Pathak, C.J.", or "Fazal Ali and Rangnath
Mishra, JJ." etc. are added to the original text.
G
For example,
A uniform style has been mentioned by SCC to take care of
! the fact that which judges have signed the Judgment.
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.

A Raw text obtained sec Page:
from Registry:
RANGANATH MISRA, J. The Judgments of the Court
were delivered by
We have had the benefit
B RANGANATH MISRA, J. (for
of reading the judgment passed
himself and Pathak, C.J.)
RANGANATHAN, J. (concurring)
The seeds of the present The Judgments of the Court
controversy were sown as early were delivered by
c as in 1946.
RANGANATHAN, J. (for
himselfand Ramaswami, J) -
The seeds of the present
controversy were sown as early
D as in 1946.
9. Existing paragraphs in the original text are broken up and
separate paragraph numbers are given.
For example,
E
Existing paragraph broken up into two paragraphs and
separate paragraph number added on application of editorial
judgment
Raw text obtained SCC Page:
F from Registry:
t
"but the risk involved in "but the risk involved in
sacrificing efficiency of sacrificing efficiency of
administration must always be administration must always be
borne in mind when any State borne in mind when any State
G
sets about making a provision sets about making a provision
for reservation of appointments for reservation of appointments
of posts." We see no justification or posts." (SCR p.606)
to multiply 'the risk', which
828. We see no
would be the consequence of
H
r EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 211
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]

holding that reservation can be justification to multiply 'the A
provided even in the matter of risk', which would be the ·
promotion. consequence of holding that
reservation can be provided
even in the matter ofpromotion.
B
weaker segments of We, the weaker segments of 'We, the
people of India. No other people of India'. No other
understanding can reconcile the understanding can reconcile the
. claim of a radical present and claim of a radical present and
hangover of the unjust past." A hang-over of the unjust past." c
similar view was .expressed in
833. A similar view was
Vasant Kumar by Chinnappa
expressed in Vasanth Kumar by
Reddy, J. The learned Judge
Chinnappa Reddy, J. The learned
said" the mere securing ofhigh
Judgesaid(SCCp.739,para36)
marks at an examination may not D
necessarily mark out a good "[T]he mere securing of high
administrator. marks at an examination may
not necessarily mark out a good
administrator.
E
MATTER ADDED UPON VERIFICATION
10. Internal referenceing: Use ofparagaraph numbering for
internal referencing within a judgment.
For example,
F
Internal paragraph numbering has been added after uniform
paragraph numbering have been provided to the multiple judgments.
Para 86, 85, 89, 90, 91 and 92 have been changed respectively
to Paras 790-793, 794 and 797, 798, 799, 800 and 801 to 803.
Raw text obtained SCC Page: G
from Registry:
(d) 'Creamy layer' can be, and (d) 'Creamy layer' can be, and
must be excluded. (Para 86) must be excluded.(Paras 790-
793)
H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.

A
(e) It is not correct to say that (e) It is not necessary for a class
the backward class, social, to be designated as a backward
educational and economic class that it is situated similarly
backwardness are closely inter- to the Scheduled Castes/
twined in the Indian context. Scheduled Tribes. (Paras 794
B
(Para 85) and 797)
(f) The adequacy of (f) The adequacy of
representation of a particular representation of a particular
class in the services under the class in the services under the
c State is a matter within the State is a matter within the
subjective satisfaction of the subjective satisfaction of the
appropriate Government. The appropriate Government. The
judicial scrutiny in that behalf is judicial scrutiny in that behalfis
the same as in other matters the same as in other matters
D within the subjective satisfaction within the subjective satisfaction
of an authority. (Para 89) of an authority. (Para 798)
(4) (a) A backward class of (4) (a) A backward class of
citizens cannot be identified only citizens cannot be identified only
and exclusively with reference and exclusively with reference
E
to economic criteria. (Para 90) to economic criteria. (Para 799)
(b) It is, of course, permissible (b) It is, of course, permissible
for the Government or other for the Government or other
authority to identify a backward authority to identify a backward
F class of citizens on the basis of class of citizens on the basis of
occupation-cum-income, occupation-cum-income,
without reference to caste, if it without reference to caste, if it
is so advised. (Para 91) is so advised. (Para 800)
(5) There is no constitutional bar (5) There is no constitutional bar
G
to classify the backward classes to classify the backward classes
of citizens into backward and of citizens into backward and
more backward categories. more backward categories.
(Para 92) (Para 801 to 803)
H
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 213
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]

11. Verification of first word of quoted extract and emphasis A
supplied on verification.
For example,
Raw text obtained sec Page:
from Registry: B

The RajasthanHigh Court in CfJ' The RajasthanHigh Court in CIT
v Rangnath Bangur opined: v. Rangnath Bangur opined:
(p.498)

" .... that once a reassessment "[T]hat once a reassessment c
proceeding is initiated, the proceeding is initiated, the
original order of assessment is original order of assessment is
set aside or ceases to be set aside or ceases to be
operative. The finality ofsuch operative. The finality ofsuch
an assessment order is wiped an assessment order is wiped D
.. out and a fresh order of assess-
ment would take the place of
out and a fresh order of assess-
ment would take the place of
and completely substitute the and completely substitute the
-initial order ofassessment. It is, initial order ofassessment. It is,
therefore, clear that when therefore, clear that when E

and said: and said: (p. 503)

"reassessment procee-dings "[R]eassessment procee-dings
cannot be contained only to such cannot be confined only to such
\ F
income which has escaped income which has escaped
assessment, but the entire assessment, but the entire
assessment assessment
Five Judges:
"the Constitution is the "[T}he Constitution is the G
fundamental law ofthe land and fundamental law of the land
)
it is wholly unnecessary to and it is wholly unnecessary
provide in any law made by the to provide in any law made by
legislature that anything done in the legislature that anything
H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007]13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A disregard of the Constitution is done in disregard of the
prohibited. Such a prohibition Constitution is prohibited.
is to be read in every Such a prohibition is to be read
enactment. in every enactment. "
(emphasis supplied)
B
12. Ellipsis" ... " is added to indicate breaks in quoted extract.
For example,
Raw text obtained sec Page:
c from Registry:
, he has said that "the word 165), he has said that
'caste' appearing after
" ... the word 'caste'
'scheduled' isreallyamisnomer
appearing after 'scheduled' is
and has been used only for the
D really a misnomer and has been
purpose of identifying this
used only for the purpose of
identifying this
Gajendragadkar, J observed: Gajendragadkar, J. observed:
E "Though castes in relation to " ... though castes in
Hindus may be a relevant factor relation to Hindus may be a
to consider in determining the relevant factor to consider in
social backwardness of groups determining the social
or classes of citizens, it cannot backwardness of groups or
F be the sole or the dominant test classes of citizens, it cannot be
in that behalf" made the sole or the dominant
test in that behalf."
manner as may be prescribed manner as may be prescribed
duties of excise on all excisable duties of excise on all excisable
G
goods which are produced or goods ... which are produced or
manufactured in India as, and at manufactured in ... India as, and
the rates, set forth in the at the rates, set forth in the
Schedule to the Central Excise Schedule to the Central Excise
Tariff Act, 1985. TariffAct, 1985.
H
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 215
D.B.MODAK&ANR. [NAOLEKAR,J.]
13. Matter inadvertently missed in quoted extracts is A
supplied.
For example,
Incorporation of matter missing in quotations from cases.
B
Raw text obtained · sec Page:
from Registry: ·
Where there is no express Where there is no express
exclusion the examination ofthe exclusion the examination ofthe
remedies and the scheme of the remedies and the scheme of the c
particular Act to find out the particular Act to find out the
intendment becomes necessary intendment becomes necessary
to see if the statute creates a and the result of the inquiry
special right or a liability and may be decisive. In the latter
provides for the determination case D
of the right
Mr Justice M.K. Chawla Mr Justice M.K. Chawla
holding that parties have no holding that Mr. H. S.
locus standi. Chowdhary and other E
intervening parties have no
locus standi.
"38. State to secure a social " 38. State to secure a social
order for the promotion of order for the promotion of
welfare of the people. (1) The welfare ofthe people. - (1) The
F
State shall strive to promote the State The State shall strive to
welfare of the people by promote the welfare of the
securing and protecting as people by securing and
effectively as it may a social, protecting as effectively as it may
G
economic and political, shall a social order in which justice,
inform all the institutions of the social, economic and political,
national life. shall inform all the institutions of
the national life.
H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A The inputs of efficiency include The inputs of efficiency include
a sense of belonging and of a sense of belonging and of
accountability (not pejoratively accountability which springs in
used) ifits composition takes in the bosom ofthe bureaucracy
also the weaker segments ofwe, (not pejoratively used) if its
B the people oflndia. composition takes in also the
weaker segments of 'We, the
people oflndia'.
"It is no doubt true that the Act "It is no doubt true that the Act
c was amended by U.P. Act 26 of was amended by U.P. Act 26 of
1975 which came into force on 1975 which came into force on
August 18, 1975 taking away August 18, 1975 taking away
the power of the Director to the power of the Director to
make an appointment under make an appointment under
D Section 16 F (4) of the Act in Section l6-F(4) of the Act in
the case of minority institutions. the case of minority institutions.
The amending Act did not, The amending Act did not,
however, provide proceedings however, provide expressly that
under Section 16 F of the Act. the amendment in question
E would apply to pending
proceedings under Section 16-
F of the Act.
* The changes have been
underlined.
F 14. Incomplete/incorrect case names or citations are
completed/corrected.
For example,
Corrections in the case names.
G Raw text obtained sec Page:
from Registry:
In R v. Greater London Council 73. In R v. Greater London
1976 (3) ALL ER 184, one Council, ex parte Blackburn,
Albert Raymond Blackbum one Albert Raymond Blackbum
H
-,
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY &ORS. v. 217
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]

Ray, CJ. in State of Uttar 47. Ray, CJ in State of UP v. A

7 Pradesh v. Pradeep Tandon
and Ors. 1975 (2) SCR 761 at
Pradfp Tandon has gone to the
extent of saying that: (SCC pp.
766 has gone to the extent of 273~ 74, para 15)
saying that:
B
Reference may be made to ( 1) Reference may be made to : (1)
Hindustan Zinc V. A.P State Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. A.P
Electricity Board 1991 (3) State Electricity Board; (2)
SCC 299; (2) Sitaram Sugars Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd
V. Union ofIndia and Others v. Union of India; (3) Delhi c
1990 (3) sec 223; (3) D.C.M Cloth and General Mills Ltd
v. S. Paramjit Singh 1990 (4) v. S. Paramjit Singh; (4)
SCC 723; (4) Minerva Talkies Minerva Talkies v. State of
V. State of Karnataka and Karnataka; (5) State of
Others 1988 Suppl SCC 176; Karnataka v. Ranganath D
(5) State of Karnataka V. Reddy; (6) Kerela State
Ranganath Reddy 1978 (1) Electricity Board v.
SCR 641; (6) Kera/a State S.N.Govinda Prabhu and
Electricity Board V. S.N. Bros.; (7) Prag Ice and Oil
Govind Prabhu 1986 (4) SCC; Mills v. Union of India; (8) E
(7) Prag Jee Company V. Saraswati Industries
Union of India and Others Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of
1978 (2) sec 458; (8) India; (9) Murthy Match
Sarawaswati Industries Works v. Assistant Collector,
Syndicate Ltd. V. Union of Central Excise; (10) T F
India 1975 (1) SCR 956; (9) Govindaraja Mudaliar v. State
Murti Match Works V.
of TN. and (11) Narender
Assistant Collector, Central
Kumar v. Union of India.
Excise and Others 1974 (3)
SCR 121; (10) T Govindraja * The changes have been G
Mudaliar V. State of Tamil underlined.
Nadu and Others 1973 (3)
SCR 222; and (11) Narender
Kumar V. Union ofIndia and
Others 1969 (2) SCR 375.
H
\
\
'
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007)13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A 15. Other corrections
For example,
a. Clauses numbered in tenns of answers to questions framed
by learned Judge have been renumbered correctly in tenns
B of questions framed, as (3 )(e) actually has been found to be
answer to (3) (c) and vice-versa.
al. Similarly, clause has been changed to sub-clause.
Raw text obtained sec Page:
c from Registry:
(c) It is not necessary for a class (c) It is not correct to say that
to be designated as a backward the backward class of citizen
class that it is situated similarly contemplated in Article 16 (4)
to the Schedule Castes/Tribes. is the same as the socially and
D (Paras 87 and 88) educa-tionally backward classes
referred to in Article 15(4). It is
(d) 'Creamy layer' can be, and
much wider. The accent in
must be excluded. (Para. 86)
Article 16( 4) is on social
(e) It is not correct to say that backwardness. Of course,
E the backward class of citizen social, educational and
contemplated inArticle 16 (4) economic back-wardness are
is the same as the socially and closely inter-twined in the Indian
educationally backward classes context. (Paras 786-789)
referred to inArticle 15(4). Itis
(d) 'Creamy Layer' can be, and
F much wider. The accent in
must be excluded. (790-793)
Article 16( 4) is on social
backwardness. Of course, (e) It is not necessary for a class
social, educational and to be designated as a backward
economic backwardness are class that it is situated similarly
G closely inter-twined in the Indian to the Schedule Castes/
context. Schedule Tribes. (Paras 794 and
797)
that no better fonnula could be that no better fonnula could be
produced than the one that is produced than the one that is
H
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY &ORS. v. 219
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
A
embodied in sub-clause (3) of embodied in clause (3) ofArticle
Article 10 of the Constitution; I0 of the Constitution; they will
they will find that the view ofthose find that the view of those who
who believe and hold that there believe and hold that there shall
shall be be
B
16. Text has been changed as per corrigenda issued, which
-, have been issued upon SCC Editor's request and suggestions.
For example,

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA c
Corrigendum
This Court's order dated October 25, 1996 in CA 14553/96@
SLP ©No. 5570193 in the matter ofSmt. Indira Sohan Lal (Dead) by
LRs. Vs. Union oflndia D

Page No. Line No. For Read
1 bottom line and deducted deducted
2 7-8 from bottom developed to bring developed to
E
on par with levelled bring them on
land and huge levelled land
and a huge
3 12-13 from bottom compelling material, compelling
nor the High Court material and F
refused to advert High Court's
to refusal to
advert to it,
OTHER ADDITIONS/INSERTIONS MADE TO THE
G
RAW TEXT
17. Compressing/simplification of information relating to case
history,
For example u

,•
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A Raw text obtained sec Page:
from Registry:
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 999- CiviIAppealsNos.999tol316
1005 OF 1997 of 1997 with I.A. No. 1 in
B C.As. arising out ofSLPs. (C)
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C}
Nos. 24224, 24285, 24315,
NOS. 18380-86 OF 1996]
24320-22, 24325-26 and
WITH
24328-29of1996, decided on
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1006-
February 20, 1997.
1316 OF 1997
c
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C)
NOS. 20293/96, 20662/96,
21726/96, 21824-26/96,
22224-502/96, 22771/96,
D 23196-97196, 23199/96,
23700-703/96, 23744/96, .
23747-48/96, 23761/96,
23763/96, 23766/96, 23775-
76/96, 24285/96,24315/96,
E 24320-22/96, 24325-26/96,
24328-29/96 & 24224/96
WITII
INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATION N0.1
F IN
CIVIL APPEALS
[ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.
(C)NOS:- 24224/96, 24285/
96,24315/96,24320-22/96,
G
24325-26/96 & 24328-29/96.
passed by Madhya Pradesh passed by Madhya Pradesh
lligh Court respectively in Misc. High Court respectively in
PetitionsNo.1371 of1992M.P. Miscellaneous Petitions Nos.
H
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 221
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
A
No. 1980of1992 and M.P. No. 1371, 1980and2315of1992.
2315 of1992.All the said Misc. All the said miscellaneous
Petitions were filed before the petitions were filed before the
Madhya Pradesh High Court Madhya Pradesh High Court
under Article 226 of the under Article 226 of the
B
Constitution. Constitution
* The changes have been
underlined.

(SCC HAS UNIQUE STYLE) c
18. There are certain norms followed at SCC for giving case
names.
For example,
Raw text obtained SCC Page: D
from Registry:

Budh Prakash Jai Prakash v. Budh Prakash Jai Prakash v.
Sales Tax Officer, Kanpur [1952 STO
A.L.J. 332] E
Indian Aluminium Cables Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd.
Limited vs. State ofHaryana v. State of Haryana
Trilok Nath Tiku & Another v. Triloki Nath Tiku v. State ofJ
State of Jammu & Kashmir and & K (1) F
j
Others
R. ChitralekhaandAnr. v. State R. Chitralekha v. State of
of Mysore & Ors. 1964 (6) Mysore and Triloki Nath v.
SCR 368 at 388 and Triloki State of J & K (II) and K. C
G
Nath v. J & K State 1969 (1) Vasanth Kumar v. State of
SCR 103 at 105 and K.C. Karnataka
.: v Vasanth Kumar v. Karnataka
1985 Supp. (1) SCR 352
H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A
Minor P. Rajendran V. State of P Rajendran v. State of
Madras & Ors. 1968 (2) SCR Madras
786 at 790
State of Andhra Pradesh V. P. State ofA.P. v. P Sagar
B Sagar 1968 (3) SCR 595
K.S. Venkataraman and Bharat KS. Venkataramanan and
Kala Bhandar Ltd. v. M.C. Bharat Kala Bhandar Ltd. v.
Dhamangaon Municipal Committee
19. Words like "Section", Sec.", "Rule" etc. are omitted,
c and only the number of the Section/Rule is given at the beginning
of the quoted extract.
Raw text obtained sec Page:
from Registry:
D "Sec 2 (h). "terrorist act" has "2 (h) 'terrorist act' has the
the meaning assigned to it in sub- meaning assigned to it in sub-
section (1) of Section 3, and the
expression "terrorist" shall be
section (1) of Section 3, and the
expression 'terrorist' shall be
•.
construed accordingly;" construed accordingly;"
E
"Rule 11. No refund of duties "11. No refund of duties or
or charges erroneously paid, charges erroneously paid,
unless claimed within three unless claimed within three
months-No duties or charges months.-No duties or charges
which have been paid or have which have been paid or have
F been adjusted in an account been adjusted in an account
current maintained with the current maintained with the
Collector Collector
"RULE 233B. Procedure to be "23 3-B. Procedure to be
G followed to cases where duty is' followed in cases where duty
paid under protest.-(1) Where is paid under protest. - (1)
an assessee desires to pay duty Where an assessee desires to
under protest he shall deliver to pay duty under protest he shall
the proper officer a letter to this deliver to the proper officer a
letter to this
H

.-
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 223
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
20. Margin heading and the first clause/sub-section or initial A
matter of section/rule etc. is made to 'run-on', instead of being let
to start from a fresh line.
Raw text obtained sec Page:
from Registry: B
"Liability of person to whom "72. Liability of person to
money is paid or thing whom money is paid or thing
delivered by mistake or under delivered, by mistake or under
/''
· coercion- 72. A person to coercion.-A person to whom
whom money has been paid, money has been paid, or c
or anything delivered, by anything delivered, by mistake
mistake or under coercion, or under coercion, must repay
must repay or return it. or return it.
Sec 424. Refund of auto- "424. Refund of automobile D
mobile accessories tax. accessories tax. - (a) No
refund shall be made of any
(a) No refund shall be made
amount paid by or collected
of any amount paid by or
from any manufacturer,
collected from any
producer, or importer in respect E
manufacturer, producer, or
importer in respect .

Section 3, which is the 175. Section 3, which is the
charging Section, reads:- charging section, reads:
"3. Duties specified in the "3. Duties specified in the F
Schedule to the Central Schedule to the Central Excise
Excise TariffAct, 1985 to be Tariff Act, 1985 to be levied.
levied. -(1) There shall be levied and
collected in such manner as may
(1) There shall be levied and G
be prescribed duties
collected in such manner as
may be prescribed duties

21. Compressing of unquoted referends and use of*** for
such parts. H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.
+
A Raw text obtained sec Page:
from Registry: ....
'six months', the words 'five 'six months', the words 'five
years' were substituted. years' were substituted.
B Explanation.-
Explanation
(ii)' relevant date- means, (1)-(2) * * *

(a) in the case of excisable (3) (i) * * * ~
goods on which duty of excise
c has not been levied or paid or
(ii) 'relevant date' means, -

has been short-levied or short- (a) in the case of excisable
paid ... goods on which duty of excise
has not been levied or paid or
(c) in any other case, the date
has been sho1i-levied or short-
D on which the duty is to be paid
paid ...
under this Act or the rules made
thereunder; (c) in any other case, the date
on which the duty is to be paid
..
under this Act or the rules made
E thereunder,''
(i) .................... (i)-(ii) * * *
(ii) ....................
(iii) where the landlord of any
(iii) where the landlord of any building is-
F building is
(1) a serving or retired Indian
(1) a serving or retired Indian .
Soldier as defined in the Indian
Soldier as defined in the Indian Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925
Soldiers (Litigation) Act, 1925 (IV of 1925), and such building
(IV of 1925) and such building was let out at any time before
G . was let out at any time before his retirement, or
his retirement, or
(2) ··························· (2) *** ,,/ .
and such landlord needs such and s1.1ch landlord needs such
H
..._

~
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 225
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
A
building for occupation by building for occupation by
himself or the members of his himself or the members of his
family for residential purposes, family for residential purposes,

22. Series of dots in the raw texts (i.e., ..............) are
replaced with ellipsis (i.e., ... ). B

Raw text obtained sec Page:
from Registry:

so to say into the so to say into the
administration...... that no better administration ... that no better c
formula could be produced than formula could be produced than
the one that is embodied in the one that is embodied in sub-
clause (3) of Article 10 of the clause (3) of Article 10 of the
Constitution; they will find that Constitution; they will find that
D
the view of those who believe the view of those who believe
and hold that there shall be and hold that there shall be
equality ofopportunity has been equality ofopportunity, has been
embodied in sub-clause (1) of embodied in sub-clause (1) of
Article 10. It is a generic Article 10. It is a generic
E
principle ......... Supposing for principle .... Supposing for
instance, we are to concede in instance, we are to concede in
full the demand of those full the demand of those
communities who have not been communities who have not been
so far employed in the public so far employed in the public
F
services to the fullest extent, what services to the fullest extent, what
would really happen is, we shall would really happen is, we shall
be completely destroying the first be completely destroying the first
proposition upon which we are proposition upon which we are
all agreed, namely, that there all agreed, namely, that there
G
shall be in an equality of shall be in an equality of
opportunity ...... .I am sure they opportunity .... I am sure they
will agree that unless you use will agree that unless you use
some such qualifying some such qualifying
H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.

A 23. Removal of abbreviations: sec., R. and cl. are substituted
respectively with "Section", "Rule" or "clause".
Raw text obtained SCC Page:
from Registry:
B Having regard to the object and "Having regard to the object and
language of s. 34 of the I. T. Act, language of Section 34 of the
1922, s. 147 of the I.T. Act, I. T. Act, 1922, Section 14 7 of
1961, ands. 8 of the SurtaxAct, the I.T. Act, 1961, and Section
1964, the reopening of an 8 of the Surtax Act, 1964, the
c assessment can only be for the reopening of an assessment can
benefit of the Revenue subject only be for the benefit of the
to one exception, Revenue subject to one
exception,

D " ...... it would not be in "... it would not be in
accordance either with cl. (1) of accordance either with clause
Art. 15 or cl. (2) of Art. 29 to (1) of Article 15 or clause (2)
require the consideration of the of Article 29 to require the
castes of persons to be borne in consideration of the castes of
E mind for determining what are persons to be borne in mind for
socially and educationally determining what are socially
backward classes. It is true that and educationally backward
cl.(4)ofArt.15containsanon- classes. It is true that clause (4)
obstante clause with the result of Article 15 contains a non-
F obstante clause with the result
* The changes have been
underlined.
24. Hyphenation has been added after the section/rule
G numbers, which have alphabets, suffixed to them.
Raw text obtained sec Page:
from Registry:
SCOPE OF SECTIONS 1IB, Scope of Sections Jl-B, ll-D,
1lD, 12A, 12B, 12C AND 12-A, 12-B, 12-Cand12-Dof
H
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 227
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]

The Central Excises and SaltAct, A
12D OF THE CENTRAL
EXCISE ACT, 1944 1944
Sections l lB and llD in Sections 11-B and 11-D in
Chapter II and Sections 12A, Chapter II and Sections 12-A,
12B, 12C and 12D in Chapter 12-B, 12-C and 12-D in B
II-A are now to be considered:- Chapter II-A are now to be
considered:
"11 B. Claim for refund of duty
"llB. Claim for refund of
(1) Any person claiming refund duty. - ( 1) Any person claiming
of any duty of excise may make refund ofany duty ofexcise may c
an application for refund ofsuch make an application for refund
duty to the Assistant of such duty to the Assistant
Commissioner ofCentral Excise Collector of Central Excise
beforethe beforethe
* The changes have been D
underlined.
25. Indentation
For example
SCC style of presentation of quoted extracts in separate indented E
paragraphs applied to raw text.
Raw text obtained sec Page:
from Registry:
As Chinnappa Reddy, J. in 57. As Chinnappa Reddy, J. in F
Vasanth Kumar has rightly Vasanth Kumar has rightly
observed, "Always one hears observed: (SCC p.739, para
the word 'efficiency' as if it is 36)
sacrosanct and the sanctorum "Always one hears the word
has to be fiercely guarded. G
'efficiency' as if it is sacrosanct
'Efficiency' is not a mantra which and the sanctorum has to be
is whispered by ~1C Guru in the fiercely guarded. 'Efficiency' is
Sishya's ear." not a mantra which is whispered
by the Guru in the Sishya's ear."
H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007113 (Add!.) S.C.R.

A 26. Removal of full stops or removal of word "No.".
Raw text obtain.~d SCC Page:
from Registry:
The appellant says that each of The appellant says that each of
B these R.S.Os. maintains an Qiese RSOs maintains an office,
office, a stock yard and other a stock yard and other
necessary paraphernalia for necessary paraphernalia for
receiving, stocking, repairing and receiving, stocking, repairing and
delivering motor vehicles to their delivering motor vehicles to their
customers. The appellant says customers. The appellant says
c that almost seventy percent of almost seventy per cent of its
its sales are to parties other than sales are parties other than State
State Transport Undertakings Transport Undertakings
S.T.Us. The sales to S.T.Us., (STUs). The sales to STUs are
are in the region of thirty percent in the region of thirty per cent of
D of its production. The R.S.Os., its production. The RSOs, the
the appellant says, contact the appellant says, contact the local
local purchasers and the ST.Us., purchasers and the STUs book
book the order and also deliver the orders and also deliver the
the vehicles to them pursuant to vehicles to them pursuant to sales
E sales effected by them. The effected by them. The appellant
appellant always keeps the always keeps the RSOs well
R.S.Os. well stocked having stocked having regard to their
regard to their requirements. By requirements. By way· of
way of illustration, it is stated, the illustration, it is stated, the RSO
F R.S.O. at Hyderabad at Hyderabad
All the three special leave 2. All the three special leave
petitions namely S.L.P. (Civil) petititions namely SLP (Civil)
No. 19279 of 1995, S.L.P. No. 19729of1995, SIP (Civil
(Civil) No. 20137 ofl995 and ) No. 20137of1995 and SLP
G S.L.P. (Civil ) No. 19796 of (Civil) No. 19796of1995 are
1995 are directed against directed against common
common judgment dated judgment r.lated 9-5-1995
9.5.1995
* The chaeges have been
i
H t underlme~~------------·-J
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY &ORS. v. 229
D.B. MOD AK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
27. Giving full forms of abbreviations to enhance readability A
and clarity. .

Raw text obtained SCC Page:
from Registry:
from legal consequences and from legal consequences and B
therefore, they are also guilty of therefore, they are also guilty of
the offence u/s 201 IPC. the offence under Section 201
IPC."
* The changes have been c
underlined.
In addition to the above, capitalization and italicization is made
wherever necessary in the raw text; and punctuation, articles, spellings
and compound words are also checked and corrected, if required, in the
original text. D
8. The copyright protection finds its justification in fair play. When
a person produces something with his skill and labour, it nonnally belongs
to him and the other person would not be permitted to make a profit out
of the skill and labour of the original author and it is for this reason the E
Copyright Act, 1957 gives to the authors certain exclusive rights in
relation to the certain work referred in the Act. The object of the Act is
to protect the author ofthe copyright work from an unlawful reproduction
or exploitation of his work by others. Copyright is a right to stop others
from exploiting the work without the consent or assent of the owner of F
the copyright. A copyright law presents a balance between the interests
and rights of the author and that of the public in protecting the public
domain, or to claim the copyright and protect it under the copyright
statute. One ofthe key requirements is that oforiginality which contributes,
and has a direct nexus, in maintaining the interests of the author as well G
as that of public in protecting the matters in public domain. It is a well-
accepted principle of copyright law that there is no copyright in the facts
per se, as the facts are not created nor have they originated with the
author of any work which embodies tb,:se facts. The issue of copyright
is closely connected to that of commen.:ial viability, and commercial H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A consequences and implications.
9. The development of copyright law in India is closely associated
·-•.
with the British copyright law. Statute ofAnne, the first Copyright Act
in England, was passed in 17th century which provided that the author
B of any book already printed will have the sole right of printing such book
for a term mentioned therein. Thereafter, came the Act of 1814, and then
the Act of 1842 which repealed the two earlier Acts of 1709 and 1814.
The Copyright Act of 1911 in England had codified and consolidated the
various earlier Copyright Acts on different works. Then came the
C Copyright Act ofl 956. In India, the first Copyright Act was passed in
1914. This was nothing but a copy of the Copyright Act of 1911 of
United Kingdom with suitable modifications to make it applicable to the
then British India. The Copyright Act of 1957, which is the current
statute, has followed and adopted the principles and provisions contained
D in the U.K. Act of 1956 along with introduction of many new provisions.
Then came the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1983 which made a number
of amendments to the Act of 1957 and the Copyright (Amendment)Act,
1984 which was mainly introduced with the object to discourage and
prevent the widespread piracy prevailing in video films and records.
E Thereafter, the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 has effected many
major amendments in the Copyright Act of 1957.
I 0. In the present case, the questions which require determination
by the Court are : ( l) What shall be the standard of originality in the
copy-edited judgments ofthe Supreme Court which is a derivative work
F and what would be required in a derivative work to treat it the original
work ofan author and thereby giving a protected right under the Copyright
Act, 1957 to the author of the derivative work? and (2) Whether the
entire version of the copy-edited text of the judgments published in the
appellants' law report sec would be entitled for a copyright as an
G original literary work, the copy-edited judgments having been claimed
as a result ofinextricable and inseparable admixture of the copy-editing
inputs and the raw text, taken together, as a result of insertion ofall sec
copy-editing inputs into the raw text, or whether the appellants would
be entitled to the copyright in some of the inputs which have been put
H
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 231
D.B. MODAK&ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
in the raw text ? A

11. Copyright is purely a creation of the statute under the 1957
Act. What rights the author has in his work by virtue of his creation, are
defined in Sections 14 and 17 of the Act. These are exclusive rights, but
subject to the other provisions of the Act. 1n the first place, the work B
should qualify underthe provisions of Section 13, for the subsistence of
copyright. Although the rights have been referred to as exclusive rights,
there are various exceptions to them which are listed in Section 52.
12. We are mainly concerned for the purpose of these appeals
with Sections 2 [clauses (k), (o), (y)], 13(1 ), 14(1 )(a), 17, proviso (d) C
and 52(1 )(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The relevant provisions of
these Sections are as under:
"2. Interpretation.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise
reqmres, - D
xxx xxx xxx
(k) "Government work" means a work which is made or published
by or under the direction or control of -
(i) the Government or any department of the Government; E

(ii) any Legislature in India;
(lii) any Court, Tribunal or other judicial authority in India;"

). xxx xxx xxx F
"(o) "literary work" includes computer programmes, tables and
compilations including computer databases;"
xxx xxx xxx
"(y) "work" means any of the following works, namely:- G

(i) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work;
(ii) a cinematograph film;
(iii) a sound recording;" H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A "13. Works in which copyright subsists. - (I) Subject to the ·-
,..
provisions of this section and the other provisions of this Act,
copyright shall subsist throughout India in the following classes of
works, that is to say, -

B
(a) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works;
(b) cinematograph films; and
(c) sound recording,
(2) Copyright shall not subsist in any work specified in sub-section
C (1 }, other than a work to which the provisions of section 40 or section
41, apply, unless -
(i) in the case of a published work, the work is first published in
India, or where the work is first published outside India, the author is at
D the date of such publication, or in a case where the author was dead at
that date, was at the time of his death, a citizen of India;
(ii) in the case of an unpublished work other than a work of
architecture, the author is at the date of the making of the work a citizen
of India or domiciled in India; and
E
(iii) in the case of a work of architecture, the work is located in
India

Explanation.- In the case of a work of joint authorship, the
conditions conferring copyright specified in this sub-section shall be
F satisfied by all the authors of the work.
(3) Copyright shall not subsist-
'
(a) in any cinematograph film if a substantial part of the film is an
infringement of the copyright in any other work;
G
(b) in any sound recording made in respect of a literary, dramatic
or musical work, if in making the sound recording, copyright in such ·,..
work has been infringed.
xxx xxx xxx"
H
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 233
D.B. MODAK&ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
-~·
> "14. Meaning of copyright. -(1) For the purposes of this Act, A
"copyright" means the exclusive right, subject to the provisions of
this Act, to do or authorise the doing of any of the following acts
in respect of a work or any substantial part thereof, namely:-
(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not being B
a computer programme, -
(i) to reproduce the work in any material form including
the storing of it in any medium by electronic means;
(ii) to issue copies of the work to the public not being c
copies already in circulation;
(lii) to perform the work in public, or communicate it to
the public;
(iv) to make any cinematograph film or sound recording in D
respect of the work;
(v) to make any translation of the work;
(vi) to make any adaptation of the work;
(vii) to do, in relation to a translation or an adaptation of E
the work, any of the acts specified in relation to the
work in sub-clauses (i) to (vi);
xxx xxx xxx''
)
"17. First owner of copyright.- Subject to the provisions ofthis F
Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright
therein:
Provided that -
xxxxxxxxx G

-( (d) in the case of a Government work, Government shall, in the
absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the
copyright therein;
H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.

A xxx xxx xxx"
...•·
"52. Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright.- (1)
The following acts shall not constitute an infringement ofcopyright,
namely:-
B (a) ....

xxx xxx xxx
(q) the reproduction or publication of -

c (i)
xxx xxx xxx

(iv) any judgment or order of a Court, Tribunal or other judicial
authority, unless the reproduction or publication of such judgment
D or order is prohibited by the Court, the Tribunal or other judicial
authority, as the case may be;
xxx xxx xxx"
13. Subjectto the provisions of Section 13 and the other provisions
E of the Act, there shall be a copyright throughout India in original literary
work, dramatic, musical and artistic works, cinematograph films and
sound recording, subject to the exceptions provided in sub-sections (2)
and (3) of Section 13. For copyright protection, all literary works have
to be original as per Section 13 of the Act. Broadly speaking, there
F would be two classes ofliterary works: (a) primary or prior works: J.
These are the literary works not based on existing subject-matter and,
therefore, would be called primary or prior works; and (b) secondary
or derivative works: These are literary works based on existing subject-
matter. Since such works are based on existing subject-matter, they are
G called derivative work or secondary work. Work is defined in Section
;2.(y) which would be a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work; a
cinematograph film; and a sound recording. Under Section 2(o), literary
work would include computer programmes, tables and compilations
including computer databases. For the purposes of the Act, Section
H 14(1) enumerates what shall be a copyright which is an exclusive right,
i

i
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 235
D.B. MODAK&ANR. [NAOLEKAR,J.]
subject to the provisions of the Act, to do or authorize the doing of the A
-, acts provided in clauses (i) to (vii) in respect ofa work or any substantial
:>
part thereof in the case of a literary, dramatic or musical work, not being
a computer programme. Section 2(k) defines the' government work'
which would be a work which is made or published by or under the
direction or control of, amongst others, any Court, Tribunal or other B
judicial authority in India. By virtue of this definition, the judgments
delivered by the Supreme Court would be a government work. Under
Section 17(d), the Government shall, in the absence of any agreement
to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright in a government work.
In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, the government shall c
be the first owner of the copyright in the judgments of the Supreme
Court, the same being a government work under Section 2(k). Section
52(1) expressly provides that certain acts enumerated therein shall not
constitute an infringement of copyright and sub-clause (iv) ofclause (q)
excludes the reproduction or publication of any judgment or order of a D
Court, Tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the reproduction or
'f
publication of such judgment or order is prohibited by the Court, the
Tribunal or other judicial authority from copyright. The judicial
pronouncements of the Apex Court would be in the public domain and
its reproduction or publication would not infringe the copyright. The E
reproduction or publication of the judgments delivered by the Supreme
Court by any number ofpersons would not be infringement of a copyright
ofthe first owner thereof, namely, the Government, unless it is prohibited.
The question, therefore, is whether by introducing certain inputs in a
~- judgment delivered by a court it becomes "original copy-edited judgment" F
and the person or authority or company who did so could claim to have
embodied the originality in the said judgment and the judgment takes the
colour of original judgment having a copyright therein of its publisher.
14. In many cases, a work is derived from an existing work. G
Whether in such a derivative work, a new copyright work is created, will
depend on various factors, and would one of them be only skill, capital
'\ and labour expended upon it to qualify for copyright protection in a
derivative literary work created from the pre-existing material in the
public domain, and the required exercise of independent skill, labour H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A and capital in its creation by the author would qualify him for the copyright
protection in the derivative work. Or would it be the creativity in a
derivative work in which the final position will depend upon the amount
and value of the corrections and improvements, the independent skill &
labour, and the creativity in the end-product is such as to create a new
B copyright work to make the creator of the derivative work the author
ofit; and if not, there will be no new copyright work and then the original
author will remain the author of the original work and the creator of the
derivative work will have been the author of the alterations or the inputs
put therein, for their nature will not have been such as to attract the
C protection under the law of copyright.
15. It is submitted by Shri Raju Ramachandran, learned senior
counsel for the appellants that Section 52( 1)(q)(iv) of the Act does not
bar the recognization of copyright in the copy-edited version of the text
D ofjudgments of the courts as published in law reports. The Government
is the first owner of copyright in the judgments of the courts as per
Section 2(k) read with Section 17 and Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Act
provides that>any person wanting to reproduce or publish judgments
would not infringe .the copyright of the Government, but Section
E 52(l)(q)(iv) does not imply that in case a person has expended
independent skill, labour and capital on the judgments of the courts to
creaJ:e and publish his version of the judgments, any other person is free
to copy that person's version of the judgments, substantially or in its
entirely. Copyright subsists in the copy-edited version of the text of
F judgments of the courts as published in law reports, which have been
created by the application of skill, labour and capital which is not trivial
or negligible. The inputs put in the copy-edited judgments in sec, is a
derivative literary work created from pre-existing material of the
judgments of the court which is in public domain. The exercise of
G independent skill, labour and capital in its creation by the author of such
work, and the derivative literary work created by the expenditure of the
independent skill, labour and capital ofthe appellants gives them copyright
in such creations. It is not necessary that work created should have a
literary merit. The courts can only evaluate whether the skill, labour and
H capital actually employed, required in creating the work, is not trivial or
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 237
D.B.MODAK&ANR. [NAOLEKAR,J.]
negligible. It is further urged by the learned senior counsel that in deciding A
whether a derivative work qualifies for copyright protection, it must be
•
~-fi

considered as a whole, and it is not correct to dissect the work into
fragments and consider the copyrightability of each such fragment
piecemeal and individually apart from the whole. He submits that the
respondents if wish to reproduce or publish a work already in public B
domain is obliged to go to the public domain/common source of such
work rather than misappropriating the effort and investment of the
appellants by copying the version of such work which was created by
4 them by independent expenditure of skill, labour and capital. To buttress
his submissions, the learned senior counsel placed reliance on various c
foreign judgments and judgments of the Indian High Courts which are
considered hereinafter.
16. Ladbroke (Football) Ltd. v. Wdlim Hill (Football) Ltd.,
(1964] 1 WLR273 (HL),isacasewheretheconceptoforiginalitywas D
considered on the basis of skill,judgment and/or labour in the context
of compilation. Since 1951 the respondents, who were well-known
'( bookmakers, had sent their customers each week fixed odds football
betting coupons arranged in a certain general fonn. In 1959 the appellants,
who were also bookmakers, started sending out coupons closely E
resembling the respondents' coupons. A coupon was a sheet of paper
on which were printed several lists offc~comingrnatches. Beside each
list were columns of squares on which the punter could indicate his
forecast of the result of each match. Some of the lists included all the
matches to be played; others included only a selection ofthem. The bets F
varied in character. A great variety of bets was offered and the odds
> offered differed widely from 5-2 to 20,000-1. The respondents' coupon
contained 16 lists, each with an appropriate name. The appellants'
coupon, which contained 15 lists, closely resembled the respondents'.
The lists offered by the appellants were almost identical with those G
offered by the respondents in their corresponding lists. The respondents
brought action claiming copyright in the coupons. The House of Lords
,- was called upon to determine whether or to what extent copyright attached
to these coupons. The respondents said that a coupon must be regarded
as a single work and that as such it was protected by copyright. The H
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A appellants sought to dissect the coupon. It was contended by the
respondents that there had been a breach of copyright by the appellants,
since the respondents' compilation, which must be regarded as a single
work, was original and protected by copyright and the part taken by the
appellants from the respondents' work was substantial. It did not follow
B that because the fragments of the compilation, taken separately, would
not be copyright, the whole could not be copyright. It was submitted by
the appellants that the derivative work of the respondents not being
original, no copyright can be claimed and the inputs put, if considered
separately, are of insignificant value and thus the respondents could not
C claim copyright.
The word 'original' does not mean that the work must be the
expression of original or inventive thought. Copyright Acts are not
concerned with the originality ofideas, but with the expression ofthought,
D and in the case ofliterary work, with the expression of thought in print
or writing. The originality which is required relates to the expression of
the thought. But the Act does not require that the expression must be in
an original or novel form, but that the work must not be copied from
another work - that it should originate from the author; and as regards
E compilation, originality is a matter of degree depending on the amount
of skill, judgment or labour that has been involved in making the
compilation. The words 'literary work' cover work which is expressed
in print or writing irrespective ofthe question whether the quality or style
is high. The commonplace matter put together or arranged without the
F exercise of more than negligible work, labour and skill in making the
selection will not be entitled to copyright. The word 'original' does not
demand original or inventive thought, but only that the work should not
be copied but should originate from the author. In deciding, therefore,
whether a work in the nature of a compilation is original, it is wrong to
G consider individual parts ofit apart from 1he whole. For many compilations
have nothing original in their parts, yet the sum total of the compilation
may be original. In such cases the courts have looked to see whether the ·r
compilation of the unoriginal material called for work or skill or expense.
If it did, it is entitled to be considered original and to be protected against
H those who wish to steal the fruits of the work or skill or expense by
J.
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 239
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
copying it without taking the trouble to compile it themselves. In each A
-, case, it is a question of degree whether the labour or skill or ingenuity
!<-
or expense involved in the compilation is sufficient to warrant a claim to
originality in a compilation.
17. While considering the question whether the copyright protection B
is available to the work created as a whole or the fragment of the work
would be considered piecemeal and individually apart from the whole,

• the House of Lords said as under:
" .... One test may be whether the part which he has taken is novel
or striking, or is merely a commonplace arrangement of ordinary c
words or well-known data. So it may sometimes be a convenient
short cut to ask whether the part taken could by itself be the
subject ofcopyright. Bfit, in my view, that is only a short cut, and
the more correct approach is first to determine whether the plaintiffs'
work as a whole is 'original' and protected by copyright, and then D
to inquire whether the part taken by the defendant is substantial.
'Y
A wrong result can easily be reached if one begins by dissecting
the plaintiffs' work and asking, could section A be the subject of
copyright if it stood by itself, could section B be protected if it E
stood by itself, and so on. To my mind, it does not follow that,
because the fragments taken separately would not be copyright,
therefore, the whole cannot be ....... "
18. In the case of Walter and Another v. Lane, [1900] AC
>-.
539 (HL), the Earl of Rosebery on five occasions in 1896 and 1898 F
delivered to the public audience speeches on subjects of public interest.
The Reporter of 'The Times' took down the speeches in shorthand,
wrote out their notes, corrected, revised and punctuated them and the
reports were published in 'The Tlilles, the speeches being given verbatim
as delivered by Lord Rosebery. The reporters were employed under the G
terms that the copyright in all reports and articles composed by 'The
Time' magazine should belong to the proprietors. In the year 1899, the
"\
respondent published a book called - "Appreciations and Addresses:
Lord Rosebery", which contained the reports of the above speeches of
H
240 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [2007] 13(Addl.)S.C.R.

A Lord Rosebery and it was admitted that these reports were taken from
the reports in 'The Times'. Lord Rosebery made no claim. The appellants
brought an action against the respondent claiming a declaration that a
copyright of the articles and reports was vested in the proprietors of
'The Times'. The issue involved in the case was whether a person who
B makes notes ofa speech delivered in public, transcribes them and publishes
in the newspaper a verbatim report of the speech, is the author of the
report within the meaning of the CopyrightAct, 1842, and is entitled to
the copyright in the report. The House of Lords held that each reporter
is entitled to report and each undoubtedly would have a copyright in his
C own published report. It was of course open to any other reporter to
compose his own report of Lord Rosebery's speech, and to any other
newspaper and book to publish that report; but it is a sound principle
that a man shall not avail himself of another's skill, labour and expense
by copying the written product thereof; and copyright has nothing to do
D with the originality or the literary merits of the author or composer. It
may exist in the information given by a street dictionary. If a person
chooses to compose and write a volume devoid of the faintest spark of
literary or any other merit, there is no legal reason why he should not,
ifhe desires, become the first publisher ofit and register his copyright,
E worthless and insignificant as it would be.
19. In the case of Designers Guild Ltd. v. Russell Williams
(Textiles) Ltd., [2000] 1 WLR 2416 (HL), the plaintiff brought
proceedings claiming that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff's
F copyright by copying one of its fabric designs, i.e. for the fabric design
Jxia. The infringement of which the plaintiffcomplained was that for the
purpose of creating its own design Marguerite by the defendant. The
defendant had copied a substantial part of Ixia. There were mainly two
main issues at the trial. First, what, if anything had the designer of
G Marguerite copied from lxia. Secondly, did what had been copied
amount to "the whole or a substantial part" of lxia? It was said by the
House of Lords that the law of copyright rests on a very clear principle
that anyone who by his or her own skill and labour creates an original
work of whatever character shall enjoy an exclusive right to copy that
H
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 241
D.B. MODAK&ANR. [NAOLEKAR,J.]
work. No one else may for a season reap what the copyrjght owner had A
-; sown.
20. University ofLondon Press Limited v. University Tutorial
Press Limited, [1916] 2 Ch 601, is perhaps the most cited judgment
regarding originality. Originality was held to be not required to be nova! B
form but the work should not be copied from other work, that is, it
should be original. The judgment was based On the following facts:
Certain persons were appointed as1 examiners for matriculation
examination ofthe University ofLondon on a condition that any copyright
in the examination papers should belong to the University. The University c
assigned the copyright to the plaintiff company.
. After the examination,
the defendant company brought out a publication containing a number
of the examination papers, including three which had been set by two
examiners appointed by the University. The plaintiffcompany brought a
case of copyright infringement against the defendant company. It was D
argued that since the setting of the papers entailed the exercise of
y brainwork, memory," and trained judgment, and even the selection of
passages from other author's work involved careful consideration,
discretion and choice they constituted ohginal literary work. On the
other and, the defendants claimed thafwh~t they had done was fair E
dealing for the purposes of private study which was permissible under
the law. The court agreed that the material under consideration was a
literary work. The words 'literary work' cover work which is expressed
in print or writing, irrespective ofthe question whether the quality or style
is high. The word 'literary' seems to be used in a sense somewhat similar F
to the use of the word 'literature' in political or electioneering literature
and refers to written or printed matter. With respect to the originality
issue, the Court held that the term 'original' under the Act does not imply
original or novel form ofideas or inventive thought, but the work must
not be copied from another work - that it should originate from the G
author.
-:\ 21. In Kelly v. Morris, (1866) LR 1Eq.697, School of thought
propounded is that, at least in respect of compilations, only time and
expenses are necessary which is "industrious collection".
H
I

-t
242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A The plaintiff was the owner and publisher of the first directory. The
defendant came out with another directory. The plaintiff sought an
injunction against the defendant to restrain the publication of the
defendant's directory on the allegations that the defendant was guilty of
appropriating the information contained in the plaintiff's directory and
B obtained the benefit of many years of incessant labour and expense. The
defendant, on the other hand, contended that there had been no unfair
or improper use of the plaintiff's work. Information which was given in
the plaintiff's directory was entitled to be used and adopted as long as
he did not servilely copy it. The defendant had bestowed his independent
C time, labour and expense on the matter and thus had in no way infringed
the copyright of the plaintiff. Granting injunction, the Court held that in
the case of a directory when there are certain common objects of
information which must, if described correctly, be described in the same
words, a subsequent compiler is bound to set about doing for himself
D that which the first compiler has done. In case of a road-book, he must
count the milestones for himself In the case ofa map ofa newly discovered
island he must go through the whole process oftriangulation just as ifhe
had never seen any former map, and, generally he is not entitled to take
one word of the information previously published without independently
E working out the matter for himself, so as to arrive at the same result from
the same common sources of information, and the only use that he can
legitimately make ofa previous publication is to verify his own calculations
and results when obtained. The compiler of a directory or guidebook,
containing information derived from sources common to all, which must
F of necessity be identical in all cases if correctly given, is not entitled to
spare himself the labour and expense of original inquiry by adopting and
re-publishing the information contained in previous works on the same
subject.
G 22. In the case of Parry v. Moring and Gollancz, Cop Cas
(1901-1904) 49, the plaintiff, after obtaining permission from the
representatives of the owner of certain letters, updated, chronologically
arranged and translated them into modern English for their inclusion in
his book. Later, the defendant published, as one of the series, an edition
H of the letters prepared by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, brought
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 243
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
an action against the defendant alleging infringement of his copyright. A
The plaintiffmaintained his copyright in his version ofthe text apart from
the copyright in the text. It was held that there is copyright in the work
ofediting the text ofa non-copyright work. The editor ofa non-copyright
work is not entitled to take the text from the edition of a rival editor and
use it as a copy for the purpose of his own work. B

23. In Gopal Das v. Jagannath Prasad and Another, AIR
1 1938 All. 266, the plaintiffs were the printers and publishers of the
books. The book titled "Sachitra Bara Kok Shastra" was printed for the
first time in 1928 and had run into four editions since. The defendants C
printed and published another book titled "Asli Sachitra Kok Shastra"
in 1930. The plaintiffs' case was that the book published by the defendants
was a colorable imitation of their book and an infringement ofplaintiffs'
copyright. It was held by the Court that the plaintiffs compiled their book
with considerable labour from various sources and digested and arranged D
the matter taken by them from other authors. The defendant instead of
taking the pains of searching into all the common sources and obtaining
his subject matter from them, obtained the subject matter from the
plaintiffs' book and availed himself of the labour of the plaintiffs and
adopted their arrangement and subject matter and, thus, such a use of E
plaintiffs' book could not be regarded as legitimate. It was held that a
person whose work is protected by copyright, ifhe has collected the
material with considerable labour, compiled from various sources of
work in itself not original, but which he has digested and arranged, the
.~ defendant could not be permitted to compile his work oflike description, · F
instead of taking the pains of searching into all the common sources and
obtaining the subject-matter from them and to adopt his arrangement
with a slight degree of colourable variation thereby saving pains and
labour which the plaintiff has employed. The act ofthe defendant would
be illegitimate use. The Court held that no one is entitled to avail himself G
of the previous labour of another for the purpose of conveying to the
public the same information, although he may append additional
information to that already published.
24. In V. Govindan v. E.M. Gopalakrishna Kone andAnother, H
..
244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.

A AIR 1955 Madras 391, the respondents had published an English-
.English Tamil Dictionary in 1932. The appellants were the publishers of X
similar Dictionary in :. 947. An action was brought regarding: the publication
and sale of the dictionary by the appellants which was alleged to be
constituting an infringement of the respondents' copyright. The lower
B court went through both the books minutely and found, "page after
page, word after word, slavishly copied, including the errors, and found
the sequence, the meanings, the arrangement and everything else practically
the same, except for some 'deliberate differences' introduced here and
there to cover up the piracy". The High Court referred to Copinger and
C James on Law ofCopyright wherein the law has been neatly summarized
that : "In the case of compilations such as dictionaries, gazetteers,
grcunmars, maps, arithmetics, almanacs, encyclopaedias and guide books,
new publications dealing with similar subject-matter must ofnecessity
resemble existing publications, and the defence of'common source' is
D frequently made where the new publication is alleged to constitute an
infringement of an earlier one." The Court held that in law books and in
books as mentioned above there is very little amount of originality but
the same is protected by law and "no man is entitled to steal or appropriate
for himself the result of another's brain, skill or labour even in such
E works." The Court further clarified that where there is a 'common
source', the person relying on it must prove that he actually went to the
common source from where he borrowed, employing his own skill,
labour and brains and that he did not merely copy.
F 25. In C. Cunniah & Co. v Ba/raj & Co., AIR 1961 Madras
111, the appellant firm was carrying on the business in pictures, picture
frames, etc. One Sri T.M. Subramaniam drew a picture of Lord
Balasubramanya and gave it the title ofMayurapriya and a copyright
was assigned to the appellant. It came to. the knowledge of the appellant
G firm that the respondent firm was printing ;:ind selling copies of a close
and colourable imitation of the appellant's picture under the style of Bala
Murugan. The case of the defence was that their picture ·,vas an
independent production and that the appellant had not acquired copyright
in the picture and the subject dealt with in that picture was a common
H subject, in which no copyrightcould be acquired by anyone. The Court
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 245
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
held that in order to obtain copyright production for literary, domestic, A
-.A musical and artistic works, the subject dealt with need not to be original,
nor the ideas expressed be something novel. What is required is the
expenditure oforiginal skill or labour in execution and not originality of
thought.
B
26. InAgarw'!la Publishing House v. Board ofHigh School
and Intermediate Education and Another,. AIR 1967 All. 91, a writ
r petition was filed by a publisher finn challenging an amendment of the
Regulations of the Board declaring that copyright of the question papers
set at all examinations conducted by the Board shall vest in the Board C
and forbidding the publication ofsuch question papers without the Board's
permission. The question involved in the case was whether the question
papers are' original literary work' and come within the purview of Section
13 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It was urged that no copyright can exist
in examination papers because they are not' original literary work'. It D
was held that the 'original literary works' referred to in Section 13 of the
Copyright Act, 1957, are not confined to the works of literature as
commonly understood. It would include all works expressed in writing,
whether they have any literary merits or not. This is clear from the
definition given in Section 2(o) of the Act which states that literary work E
includes tables and compilations. The Court further held that the word
'original' used in Section 13 does not imply any originality of ideas but
merely means that the work in question should not be copied from some
other work but should originate in the author, being the product of his
labour and skill. F
27. In the case of Gangavishnu Shrikisondas v. Moreshvar
Bapuji Hegishte and Others, ILR 13 Born 358, the plaintiff, a book
seller, in 1984 brought out a new and annotated edition ofa certain w~ll
known Sanskrit work on religious observances entitled 'Vrtraj,' having
for that purpose obtained the assistance of the pandits, .who re-cast and G
re-arranged the work, introduced various passages from other old
Sanskrit books on the same subject and added f9otn.otes.L~ter on, the
defendant printed and published an edition of the same
,J· ' J.
I I:
w9rk,
:.·'• . .
the text
of which is identical with that of the plaintiff's work, whic:h moreover H
. , : •I :·~ •lll' ·I'. •
246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A contained the same additional pages and the same footnotes, at the same
places, with many slight differences. The foundation of both plaintiff's
and defendant's books is an old Sanskrit work on Hindu ceremonial,
which could have been published by anyone. The copyright claimed by
the plaintiff was on the additions and alterations to the original text,
B which the parties admit to be material and valuable, and in which the
copyright is claimed of its prior publication. The defendants argued that
there was nothing really original in the plaintiff's book and, therefore, he
was not entitled to copyright in the book. It was held by the Court that
a new arrangement of old matters will give a right to the protection
C afforded by the law of copyright. Ifanyone by pains and labour collects
and reduces it as a systematic compilation in the form of a book it is
original in the sense that that entitles the plaintiff to the copyright. The
plaintiff worked for such a new arrangement of old matters as to be an
original work and was entitled to the protection; and that as the defendants
D had not gone to independent sources of the material but had pirated the
plaintiff's work, they were restrained by injunction.
28. In Rai Toys Industries and Others v. Munir Printing
Press, 1982 PTC 85, the plaintiff had published a Tambola ticket book
E containing 1500 different tickets in 1929. The plaintiffs alleged that the
defendants had brought out another ticket book which the plaintiffs
claimed to have written in 1929 and registered as copyright. The ticket
book brought out by the defendants was alleged to contain 600 different
tickets and the same had been copied identically from the books of the
F plaintiff. On this basis, a suit for injunction and rendition of account was
filed by the plaintiff. The question before the court was whether the
ticket-books in the form of tables constitute literary work; and whether
copyright has been violated or not? It was held by the High Court that
preparation of tickets and placing them in tables required a good deul
G of skill and labour and would thus satisfy the test ofbeing original literary
work. It was recognized that the arrangement of numbers is individual
work of a person who prepares it; it bears his individuality and long
hours oflabour. It is not information which could be picked up by all and
sundry. The preparation of tickets is an individualized contribution and
H the compilation eminently satisfies the test of being an original literary
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 247
D.B. MODAK&ANR. [NAOLEKAR,J.]
work. Hence it was held to be a clear case of copyright violation when A
~~ the defendant decided to pick and choose 600 tables on the sly and
publish them as his individual work.
29. In Macmillan and Another v. Suresh Chandra Deb, ILR
17 Cal 952, the plaintiffs were proprietors of the copyright of a selection B
of songs and poems composed by various authors, which was published
in 1861. In 1889, the defendants published a book containing same
selection of poems and songs as was contained in plaintiffs' book, the
arrangement, however, being different. The plaintiffs claimed copyright
in the selection made by them. The defendants, on the other hand, c
contended that there could be no copyright in such selection. The Court
held that in the case of works not original in the proper sense of the term,
but composed of, or compiled or prepared from material which are
open to all, the fact that one man has produced such a work does not
take away from any one else the right to produce another work of the D
same kind, and in doing so to use all the mat~rials open to him. But, as
the law is concisely stated by Hall, V.C., in Hogg v Scott, L.R. 18 Eq.
444, , "the true principle in all these cases is, that the defendant is not
at liberty to use or avail himself ofthe labour which the plaintiff has been
at for the purpose of producing his work, that is, in fact, merely to take E
away the result of another man's labour, or, in other words, his property."
It is enough to say that this principle has been applied to maps, to road
books, to guide books, to compilations on scientific and other subjects.
This principle seems to be clearly applicable to the case of a selection
of a poem. It was held that for such a selection as the plaintiffhad made F
obviously required extensive reading, careful studying and comparison
and the exercise of taste and judgment to make a selection for himself.
But, if one spares himself this trouble and adopts some other person's
selection, he offends against the principle. The Court was of the opinion
that the selection of poems made by the plaintiff and embodied in the G
Golden Treasury was the subject of copyright and that the defendant's
book had infringed that right.
"" 30. These decisions are the authority on the proposition that the
work that has been originated from an author and is more than a mere
H
248 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A copy of the original work, would be sufficient to generate copyright. This
approach is consistent with the "sweat of the brow" standards of
originality. The creation of the work which has resulted from little bit of
skill, labour and capital are sufficient for a copyright in derivative work
of an author. Decisions propounded a theory that an author deserves to
B have his or her efforts in producing a work, rewarded. The work of an
author need not be in an original form or novel fonn, but it should not
be copied from another's work, that is, it should originate from the
author. The originality requirement in derivative work is tha~ it should
originate from the author by application of substantial degree of skill,
C industry or experience. Precondition to copyright is that work must be
produced independently and not copied from another person. Where a
compilation is produced from the original work, the compilation is more
than simply a re-arranged copyright of original, which is often referred
to as skill, judgment and or labour or capital. The copyright has nothing
D to do with originality or literary merit. Copyrighted material is that what
is created by the author by his skill, labour and investment of capital,
maybe it is derivative work. The courts have only to evaluate whether 'i
derivative work is not the end-product of skill, labour and capital which
is trivial or negligible but substantial. The courts need not go into evaluation
E ofliterary merit of derivative work or creativity aspect of the same.
31. Mr. P N Lekhi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondents in C.A. No. 647212004 has submitted that the judgment of
the court is a government work as defined under Section 2(k)(iii) and
F on account of Section 17 (d), the Government in the absence of any
agreement to the contrary be tJ1e first owner of the copyright therein. ..
Section 52(1 )(q)(iv) provides that the publication of any judgment or
order ofa court, tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the reproduction
ofpublication ofsuch judgment ororderis prohibited, would not constitute
G an infringement of the copyright ·Therefore, publication ofthe judgments
ofthe apex court by the respondents would not tantamount to infringement
of the copyright of the appellants. It is further urged that the judgments
published in the Supreme Court Cases is nothing but merely a derivative
work based upon the judgments of the court, which lacks originality as
H it does not depict independent creation even a modicum • of creativity.
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. 'v. 249
D.B. MODAK&ANR. [NAOLEKAR,J.]
The inputs put by the appellants is nothing but expressing an idea which '1 'A
"1 can be expressed in a limited way and as such there ~~t be ac6]JYrtght: 1 .'
Filling the blanks or gaps by providing hames of the parties or citati6ns
of thejudgrnents, both of which are well known and unchangeable parts '· .
ofthat idea, are not original work. These are notfcreative· at allto "1
warrant copyright protection, either singly or in combination. The additiolli; i· ·B ' '
made in the reported judgment by the editors of the Supreme Court"
Cases are only the well known extensions of the reported decision. ,
? These extensions lack even the minimal degree of author's creativity or
originality or intellectual labour. These additions do riot create additional
knowledge, the protection of which is the very basis of the copyright· C
protection.
32. It is submitted by Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, learned counsel for
the respondents in C.A. No. 6905/2004, that in the presep.t case, the
journals of the appellants, including SCC, are printed and published on D
the basis of pre-existing judgments. Journals are, therefore, a derivative .
work. There is a distinction between a 'law report' as understood in.,
England and a 'law journal' as printed in India. The appellants' journal ,.
'SCC' is not a law report in the strict sense, inasmuch as the appellants~ .
journal reproduces the judgments ofthe court verbatim along with inputs. E
However, a law report known in the traditional English sense is when a
law reporter present in the court would record in his own words and
language the arguments of the counsel on both sides, give a summary of
the facts and incorporate into the said report his transcript of the speech
of the Judge. Thus, the appellants' work could only be a law journal and F
not a law report. The judgments were specifically made a part of the
exception to copyright infringement and thus find place in Section 52(1 )(q)
of the Act. The underlying purpose is that it is in public interest to place
judgments in public domain. The work for which the copyright protection
is claimed is a derivative work. For claiming protection of copyright in G
a derivative work, under the Indian Jaw originality is a pre-condition and
originality means only that the work was independently created by the
author as opposed to copied from other works, and that it possesses at
least some minimal degree of creativity. There is a distinction between
creation and discove1y. The first person to find a particular fact has not H
250 SUPREMECOURTREPORTS [2007] 13(Addl.)S.C.R.

A created the fact, he or she has merely discovered its existence. Reporting
ofthe judgments of the Supreme Court with certain inputs could only be
said to be a discovery of facts already in existence. Though for the
r
purposes ofcreativity neither novelty nor invention is requisite for copyright ..
protection, but at least some minimal creativity is a must. To create a
B copyright by alterations ofthe text, these must be extensive and substantial
practically making a new version. The English decisions relied upon by
the appellants would not apply to the facts of the present case as all the
said authorities are under the old 1842 Act in U.K. wherein the word ( )

'original' was conspicuously missing in the statute. It is further urged that
C the copy-editing inputs of the appellants are only discoveries/facts and
there are limited ways/unique of expressing the various copy-editing
inputs and thus no copyright can subsist in such limited/unique expressions.
The facts which are discovered could be expressed in limited ways and
as such ways adopted cannot give copyright protection to the inputs or
D the judgments as a whole. It is urged that recognizing the copyright in the
copy-edited version of the law reports would amount to giving the
appellants a monopoly in the judgments of the courts which is against the y
intendment of Section 52(l)(q)(iv) and would defeat the purpose of
putting judgments in the public domain. It is submitted by the learned
E counsel for the respondents that for a derivative work, the originality test
as applied in United States Supreme Court should be made applicable
whereby the author of a derivative work would satisfy that the work has
been produced from his exercise of skill and judgment. The exercise of
skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial
F that it could be characterized a purely mechanical exercise. The work
should be independently created by the author as opposed to copied
from the other works and that it possesses at least some minimal degree
of creativity. The case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the
respondents is considered hereinafter.
G
33. In Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service
Co. Inc., 18 USPQ 2d. 1275, Rural Telephone Service Co. publishes
a typical telephone directory consisting of white pages and yellow pages.
The white pages list in alphabetical order the names ofrural subscribers
H together with their towns and telephone numbers. The yellow pages list
i
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 251
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
Rural's business subscribers alphabetically by category and feature A
'A classified advertisements of various sizes. To obtain white pages listings
for its area-wide directory, Feist Publications Inc. approached different
telephone companies operating in North West Kansas and offered to
pay for the right to use their white pages listings. Of them, only Rural
refused. Unable to license Rural's white pages listings, Feist used them B
without Rural's consent. Rural sued for copyright infringement in the
District Court ta1cing the position that Feist, in compiling its own directory,
r could not use the information contained in Rural's white pages. Rural
asserted that Feist's employees were obliged to travel door to door or
conduct a telephone survey to discover the same information for c
themselves. Feist responded that such efforts were economically
impractical and, in any event, unnecessary because the information copied
was beyond the scope ofcopyright protection. The United States Supreme
Court held that the sine qua non of copyright is originality. To qualify
for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. Original, D
as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was
'( independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other
works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.
The requisite level ofcreativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will
· suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they E
possess some creative spark, no matter how crude, humble or obvious
it might be. Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original
even though it closely resembles other works so long as the similarity is
fortuitous, not the result of copying. The Court further held that no one
)- claim originality as to the facts. This is because facts do not owe their F
origin to an act of authorship. The distinction is one between creation
and discovery: the first person to find and report a particular fact has not
created the fact; he or she has merely discovered its existence. Factual
compilations, on the other hand, may possess the requisite originality.
The compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in What G
order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they
--.{
may be used effectively by readers. These choices as to selection and
arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler
and entail a minimal degree of creativity, are sufficiently original. Thus,
H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A if the compilation author clothes facts with an original collocation of
words, he or she may be able to claim a copyright in this written
expressfon. The Court goes on to hold that the primary objective of
copyright is not to reward the labour of authors, but to promote the
progress bf science and useful arts. To this end, copyright assures authors
B the right to their original expression but encourages others to build freely
upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. Only the compiler's
selection and arrangement may be protected; however, the raw facts
may be"copied at will. The Court rejected the doctrine of the "sweat of
the bro\V' as this doctrine had numerous flaws, the most glaring being
c that it extended copyright protection in a compilation beyond selection
and arrangement- the compiler's original contributions - to the facts
themselves. A subsequent compiler was not entitled to take one word
of information previously published, but rather had to independently
work olit the matter for himself, so as to arrive at the same result from
D the same common sources ofinformation. "Sweat of the brow" courts
thereby eschewed the most fundamental axiom of copyright law that no
one may copyright facts or ideas. The "sweat of the brow" doctrine
flouted basic copyright principles and it creates a monopoly in public
domain materials without the necessary justification of protecting-and
E encouraging the creation of writings by authors.

34. The judgment in Matthew Bender & Co., Inc. v. West
Publishing Co., 158 F.3d 674 (2nd Cir. 1998), is of United States
Court ofAppeals, Second Circuit, which directly covers the reports of
F the jt1pgments of the courts. The facts involved in the case are that the
West Publishing Co. and West Publishing Corp. ("West") obtain the text
of judicial opinions directly from courts. It alters these texts into (i)
independently composed features, such as syllabus, headnotes which
summarize the specific points oflaw recited in each opinion and key
G numbers which categorize points .oflaw into different legal topics and
sub-topics and (ii) additions of certain factual information to the text of
the opinions, including parallel or alternative citations to cases, attorney
info1llliltion, and data on~if\Jsequent procedural history. West publishes
the ca~e reports in different series of case reporters collectively known
H as "National Reporter System". Two series of case reporters at issue in
EASTERN
'·
BOOK COMPANY
' .. .. . &. ORS.
. v. .. _.. \. ~ .. / ,
253
D.B.MODAK&ANR. [NAOLEKAR,J.]
that c;ase we~.~ the Supr,eme Coup Reporter and theFedera!Reporter..· A
HyperLawpublishes and markets CD-RO Ms which are compilations
~
of the Sup;eme
...J Lil ... :J .
Court and the Ucited St~tes Court ofAppeals that cover
i- • , • · J • . ~ . . .

..
, approximately
~'!": ..•. ..__ _,1,l· •.
the same ground. Hyper ·
'.~I· Jo
Law intends -to., expand ·- ·
its· CD-
• ~

ROM product taking the material from the West publications;H)'.!Jerllaw
~ •I ' . , .i ~ • • -~ I , • , ,.. J• •

.intervened an.d ~?µght ~ judgnient 9~clarjng th<it the ind\vidual Wey;t case' B
reportsI that
.., ' • , . _.
J ;
are,.
le.ft
_, ·~
after redaction l .
of' the first ·category of alterations
1 .. . ,
do ' -.J ·

,not pontain cop:yi;ightabk:.m,~terial. I,t ;v11s held by the Court that for
_cogy,9gbtPro,t~\i}~n.}\le,pi,~t_e.,rjal, ~oespot require novelty orin".ention,
b~t mi11~m,~l ~r~ath51)jiJ, r~Jl~ire,~;All of)Vest's ~lteration~,to judicial
, · opiJJi<:>n~ in:-,;qlvf,thrL~~!tiolJ, and,~rrangem~nt of facts,. or:the . C
~~at"[~f?,~~n.! ?fdata. al!~ady i~c;lu~t<d in the opinions, ~g, .the.refwe,
. , ~y cre~t\y\!{'1 ip th~~~·~l~ment;5 of West's case reports lies in West's
; . ~l~tion an4 ~~men~ of1¥,s information. West's choices on selection
and arr,a!(ge~er:it_can rea,sonably be v_iewed as obvious, typical and
, l_ac~? t;:~~n minimal creatjy~ty., ~op~glit protection is unavailable for D
'
.,both derivative works and compilatiof\S
. .. ~ I : \ J... • :
alike unless, when analysed as
-l' ' • . - . . ' . • . • .; • I - '

~ wpo~~1 ~eY,. ~~pla~ ~~ci~nt origina.Jjty so as_ to amount to an original
work of authorship. Originality requires only thitl lJ:i~ autho.r makes the
selection or arrangement independently and that it displays some material
· Withminllncil level of creativity:1While dcopy of~oin~thing in the public E
domain•'wilPhot, if'hil5e:.rnerely :a copy; support a copyright, a
distinguishable variation Will. To support a copyright there must be at
least some substantial variation, rlotmerely a trivial variation such as
·•might occur in the translation to a different medium. Creativity ill' $election
and arrangement, therefore, is a function of (i) the total number of options F
available, (ii) external factod the viability ofcertain options and thatlnmt
render others non-creative, and(iii) prioruseSthat render certain selections
l-'''. g·at...1t........"'
uocu vane.;.
;... ti' ·· '·,.,_'·1 ·: ··1,·· ;~ ' . 1 ~ 1' r·... l· . .·1, ·1ILI0 · .
•·'I rir' • ......)iJtt0· .. -~11.rP·.-··n< ')1 ·: n·\·,'-'/l_!i '·"'j• .. ·; - Jf p - ..
, ,,: , 3.5.. Jp., the ~~e .9flft;y 1P11;~/jcatio/is, [n.<fr v.,Chinatow.n .'(oday , G
. PubliSh,ingEnterp_ris.es, Inc. ;.945F2d.509, Key Publication Pllblishe.d
r , -.·/ '.f~ . .. ·. •' '·.}1.Jl • ,,·.$..1,;, · .), ··I· •·· -~ -.:- "• -- '"'.

_iinAnmial ClassifiedBusines,'1,Directoi:y.for New,York Qity.:s,Chjnese-
- . ' I .,J ' • - !," _,,_ ' . - ...... , - .' ;_... • - ~ " . - .

.Ame~~\ill cc;m1?1~o/·. ~- 1,?,991 qal,qre PuqliC£l~912P!lbl\shed the.Galore.
Directory,
l(: ·t:·· a.classified directory
'. ... Uii....t .oi•..1.! .• •
forthe
"'--•'• ·,.
NewYorkChinese.American
- t~_
... . - ''' -~ ~::~ •·""-::,·---·~-

•H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.

A community. Key brought a suit against Galore Directory charging that
Galore Directory infringed Key's copyright in the 1989-90 Key
Directory. The United States Court of Appeal held that individual
components of compilation are generally within the public domain and
thus available for public. There are three requirements for a compilation
B to qualify for copyright protection : (1) the collection and assembly of
pre-existing data; (2) selection, co-ordination or arrangement of the
data; and (3) the resulting work that comes into being is original, by
virtue ofthe selection, coordination or arrangement of the data contained
in the work. For originality, the work is not required to contain novelty.
C The doctrine of"sweat of the brow", rewarded compilers for their
efforts in collecting facts with a de facto. copyright to those facts and this
doctrine would prevent, preclude the author absolutely from saving time
and effort by referring to and relying upon prior published material. It
extended copyright protection in compilation beyond selection and
D arrangement- the compiler's original contribution - to the facts themselves
drawn on "sweat of the brow" is a copyright protection to the facts
discovered by the compiler. The court discarded "sweat of the brow"
notion of copyright law.
E 36. In Macmillan and Company v. K. and J. Cooper, 1924
Privy Council 75, action was brought by McMillan and Company to
restrain the respondent-firm who was carrying on the trade and business
ofpublishers ofeducational books, from printing, distributing or otherwise
disposing of copies of the book published by the appellants. The ground
F on which the relief was claimed was that the appellants had a copyright
in the book entitled "Plutarch's Life ofAlexander, Sir Thomas North's
Translation and that the respondent published subsequently a book entitled
"Plutarch's Life ofAlexander the Great, North's Translation", as it had
infringed the copyright to which the appellants were entitled in the earlier
G compilation. The Court noted the contents of the book of the appellants
as also that ofthe respondent. As per the Court, the text ofthe appellants'
book consisted of a number of detached passages, selected from Sir
Thomas North's translation, words being in some instances introduced
to knit the passages together so that the text should as far as possible,
H
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 255
D.B. MODAK&ANR. [NAOLEKAR,J.]
present the form of an unbroken narrative. The passages so selected A
were, in the original translation, by no means contiguous. Considerable
printed matter in many instances separated the one from the other. The
opinion of the Privy Council was that for the work done by the appellants,
great knowledge, sound judgment, literary skill or taste in the inputs
brought to bear upon the translation was not required, as the passages B
of the translation which had been selected are reprinted in their original
form, not condensed, expanded, modified or reshaped to any extent
'r whatever. The Court observed that the North's translation of Plutarch's
Life ofAlexander does not and never did, as the law stands, never can
enjoy the protection of copyright; and the questions which arise for C
decision must be dealt with upon that assumption. The Court said that
in all cases where the reprint with the text of it consisted merely of a
reprint of passages selected from the work of any author, would never
have a copyright. There may be cases where selecting and reprinting the
passages would require the appreciation upon what has been laid down D
or established in the book and labour, accurate scientific knowledge,
sound judgment, touching the purpose for which the selection is made,
and literary skill would all be needed to effect the object in view. In such
a case, the copyright might well be acquired for the print of the selected
passages. The Court said that it is the product of the labour, skill and E
capital of one man which must not be appropriated by another, not the
elements, the raw material, upon which the labour and skill and capital
of the first have been expended. To secure copyright for this product,
it is necessary that the labour, skill and capital expended should be
sufficient to impart to the product some quality or character which the F
raw material did not possess and which differentiates the product from
the raw material. The Court approved the principles enunciated in the
case of University of London Press, Ltd. v. University Tutorial
Press, Ltd., [1916] 2 Ch. 601, dealing with the meaning of the words
'original literary work' that the original does not mean expression of G
original or inventive thought. The Copyright Act is not concerned with
the original ideas, but with the expression of thought. The originality
which is required relates to expression of thought and the Act does not
require that the expression must be in original or novel form. The work
H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A must not be copied from another work - that it should originate from the
t.,
author.
· 37. The Supreme Court of Canada in the matterof CCH Canadian
Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2004 (1) SCR 339 (Canada)
B has noticed the competing views on the meaningof'original' in copyright
law wherein some courts have held that awork which has originated
from an author and is more than a mere copy of a work, is sufficient to
give copyright. This approach is held to be consistent with the 'sweat of
the brow' or 'industriousness' standard oforiginality on the premise that
C an author deserves to have his or her efforts in producing a work rewarded.
Whereas the other courts have held that a work must be creative to be
original and thus protected by the copyright Act, which approach is
consistent with a natural rights theory of property Jaw; however, it is Jess
absolute in that only those works that are the product of creativity will
D be rewarded with copyright protection and it was suggested in those
decisions that the creativity approach to originality helps ensure that
copyright protection is extended to the expression of ideas as opposed
to the underlying ideas or facts. The Court has also noticed that those
cases which had adopted the sweat of the brow approach to originality
E · should not be interpreted as concluding that labour, in and of itself,
wo'uld be a ground for finding oforiginality. The question for consideration
ofthe copyright has arisen on the following fact foundation. The appellant,
Law Society of Upper Canada, has maintained and operated the Great
Library at Osgoode Hall in Toranto, a reference and research library.
F The Great Library provides a request-based photocopy service for Law
Society members, thejudiciary and other authorized researchers. Under
the custom photocopy service, legal materials are reproduced and
delivered to the requesters. The Law Society also maintains self-service
photocopiers in the Great Library for use by its patrons. The respondents,
G CCH Canadian Ltd., Thomson Canada Ltd. and Canada Law Book
me. publish law reports and other legal materials. The law book publishers
commenced copyright infringement action against the Law Society
claiming ownership of copyright in 11 specific works on the ground that
the Law Society had infringed copyright when the Great Library
H reproduced a copy of each of the works. The publishers further sought
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 257
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
permanent injunction prohibiting the Law Society from reproducing these A
11 works as well as any other works that they published. The Law
Society denied liability and submitted that the copyright is ~ot infringed
when a single copy of a reported decision, case summary, statute,
regulation or a limited selection of text from a treatise is made by the
Great Library staff or one of its patrons on a self-service photocopier B
for the purpose of research. The Court was called upon to decide the
question as to what shall be the originality in the work of compilation.
On consideration of various cases, it was held that to be original under
the CopyrightAct the work must originate from an author, not be copied
from another work, and must be the product of an author's exercise of C
skill and judgment The exercise ofskill and judgment required to produce
the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely
inechanical exercise. Creative works by definition are original and are
protected by copyright, but creativity is not required in order to render
a work original. The original work should be the product of an exercise D
of skill and judgment and it is a workable yet fair standard. The sweat
ofthe brow approach to originality is too low a standard which shifts the
balance of copyright protection too far in favour of the owner's right,
and fails to allow copyright to protect the public's interest in maximizing ·
the production and dissemination of intellectual works. On the other E
hand, the creativity standard oforiginality is too high. A creative standard
implies that something must be novel or non-obvious - concepts more
properly associated with patent law than copyright law. By way of
contrast, a standard requiring the exercise of skill and judgment-in the
)- production of a work avoids these difficulties and provides a workable F
and appropriate standard for copyright protection that is consistent with
the policy of the objectives of the Copyright Act. Thus, the Canadian
7
• Supre~e Court is of the view that to claim copyright in a compilation,
the author must produee a material with exercise ofhis skill and judgment G
which may not be creativity in the sense that it is not novel or non-
obvious, but at the same time it is not the product of merely labour and
capital.
38. It is the admitted position that the reports in the Supreme
Court Cases (SCC) ofthe judgments ofthe Supreme Court is a derivative H

====------------- -- -- --------
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A work in public domain. By virtue of Section 52(1) of the Act, it is
·~·
expressly provided that certain acts enumerated therein shall not constitute
an infringement of copyright. Sub-clause (iv) of clause (q) of Section
52(1) excludes the reproduction or publication of any judgment or order
of a Court, Tribunal or other judicial authority, unless the reproduction
B QI' publication of such judgment or order is prohibited by the Court, the
Tribunal or other judicial authority from copyright. The judicial
pronouncements of the Apex Court would be in the public domain and
its reproduction or publication would not infringe the copyright. That
being the position, the copy-edited judgments would not satisfy the
C copyright merely by establishing amount of skill, labour and capital put
in the inputs of the copy-edited judgments and the original or innovative
thoughts for the creativity are completely excluded. Accordingly, original
or innovative thoughts are necessary to establish copyright in the author's
work. The principle where there is common source the person relying
D on it must prove that he actually went to the common source from where
he borrowed the material, employing his own skill, labour and brain and
he did not copy, would not apply to the judgments of the courts because
there is no copyright in the judgments of the court, unless so made by
the court itself. To secure a copyright for the judgments delivered by the
E court, it is necessary that the labour, skill and capital invested should be
sufficient to communicate or impart to the judgment printed in sec
some quality or character which the original judgment does not possess
and which differentiates the original judgment from the printed one. The
Copyright Act is not concerned with the original idea but with the
F expression of thought. Copyright has nothing to do with originality or
literary merit. Copyrighted material is that what is created by the author
by his own skill, labour and investment ofcapital, maybe it is a derivative
work which gives a flavour of creativity. The copyright work which
G comes into being should be original in the sense that by virtue ofselection,
co-ordination or arrangement of pre-existing data contained in the work,
a work somewhat different in character is produced by the author. On
the face of the provisions of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, we think
that the principle laid down by the Canadian Court would be applicable
H in copyright of the judgments of the Apex Court. We make it clear that
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 259
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
the decision of ours would be confined to the judgments of the courts A
which are in the public domain as by virtue of Section 52 of the Act there
is no copyright in the original text of the judgments. To claim copyright
in a compilation, the author must produce the material with exercise of
his skill and judgment which may not be creativity in the sense that it is
novel or non-obvious, but at the same time it is not a product of merely B
labour and capital. The derivative work produced by the author must
have some distinguishable features and flavour to raw text ofthe judgments
y delivered by the court. The trivial variation or inputs put in the judgment
would not satisfy the test of copyright of an authur.
c
39. On this touchstone, we shall take into c-0nsideration the inputs
put by the appellants in their journal 'SCC'. The appelbnts have added
in the copy-edited version the cross-citations to the ;;itatiun(s) already
given in the original text; added names of cases and c:wss-citations
where only the citation of the case is given; added citation and cross- D
citations where only name of the case is given; inserted citation in case
history where only the title and year of the impugned/earlier order is
given; presented in their own style the cases when they are cited repeated
in the judgment; provided precise references to the quoted matter in the
judgment by giving exact page and paragraph number as in the original E
case source/treatise/reference material; added margin headings to quoted
extracts from statutes/rules, etc., when they are missing from the original
text of the judgment; added the number of the Section/Rule/Article/
paragraph to the extract quoted in the original text; added the names of
Judges on whose behalfopinion given by giving expressions such as "for F
himself and Pathak, C.J." etc.; done verification of first word of the
quoted extract and supplied emphasis on such verification; added ellipsis
" ... "to indicate breaks in quoted extract; provided and supplied the
matter inadvertently missed in quoted extracts in the original text of the
judgment; completed/corrected the incomplete/incorrect case names or G
citations; renumbered correctly the clauses/sub-clauses in terms of the
questions framed which were numbered in terms ofanswers to questions
framed by learned Judge; changed the text as per corrigenda issued,
which has been issued upon SCC Editor's request and suggestions;
H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.

A done compres.singlsimplification ofinfonnation relating to the case history;
followed certain norms at SCC for giving case names; omitted the words t·
like "Section'', "Sec.", "Rule", etc. and given only the number of the
Section/mle at the beginning ofthe quoted extract; made margin heading
and the first clause/sub-section or initial matter of section/rule etc. to
B run-on instead of being let to start from a fresh line; done compressing
of unquoted referends and use of*** for parts; replaced the series of
dots in the raw text with ellipsis; removed abbreviations such as sec., R.,
cl. and substituted them with full word, i.e. Section, Rule,.Glause; added
hyphenation after the section/rule numbers which hav.e a).phabets suffixed
C to them; applied indentation of quoted extracts; removed full stops or
word ''No."; and given full forms ofabb.reviations to enhance readability
and clarity. In addition to the above, capitalization and italicization is also
made wherever necessary in the raw text; and punctuati:on, articles,
spellings and compound words are also checked and corrected, if
D required, .in the original text.
40. The aforesaid inputs put by the appellants in the judgments y
would have had a copyright had we accepted the principle that any one
who by his or her own skill and labour creates an original work of
E whatever character, shall enjoy an exclusive right to copy that work and
no one else would be permitted to reap the crop what the copyright
owner had sown. No doubt the appellants have collected the.material
and improved the readability of the judgment by putting inputs in the
original text of the judgment by considerable labour and arranged it in
F their own style, but that does not give the flavour ofminimum requirement
of creativity. The exercise of the skill and judgment required to produce
the work is trivial and is on account ofthe labour and the capital invested
and could be characterized as purely a work which has been brought
about by putting some amount oflabour by the appellants. Although for
G establishing a copyright, the creativity standard applies is not that
something must be novel or non-obvious, but some amount ofcreativity
in the work to claim a copyright is required. It does require a minimal
degree of creativity. Arrangement ofthe facts or data or the case law is r·
already included in the judgment of the court. Therefore, creativity of
H
~·

EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 261
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]

~,
sec would only be addition ofcertain facts or material already published, A
case law published in another law report and its own arrangement and
" presentation ofthe judgment ofthe court in its own style to make it more
user- friendly. The selection and arrangement can be viewed as typical
and at best result of the labour, skill and investment of capital lacking
even minimal creativity. It does not as a whole display sufficient originality B
so as to amount to an original work of the author. To support copyright,
there must be some substantive variation and not merely a trivial variation,
1 not the variation of the type where limited ways/unique of expression
available and ari author selects one of them which can be said to be a
garden variety. Novelty or invention or innovative idea is not the c
requirement for protection ofcopyright but it does require ininimaI degree
ofcreativity. In our view, the aforesaid inputs put by the appellants in the
copy-edited judgments do not touch the standard of creativity required
for the copyright.
.D
41. However, the inputs put in the original text by the appellants
"'{ in (i) segregating the existing paragraphs in the original text by breaking
them into separate paragraphs; (ii) adding internal paragraph numbering
within a judgment after providing uniform paragraph numbering to the
multiple judgments; and (iii) indicating in the judgment the Judges who E
have dissented or concurred by introducing the phrases like 'concurring',
'partly concurring', 'partly dissenting', 'dissenting', 'supplementing',
'majority expressing no opinion', etc., have to be viewed in a different
light. The task ofparagraph numbering and internal referencing requires
}
skill and judgment in greatmeasme. The editor who inserts para numbering F
must know how legal argumentation and legal discourse is conducted
and how a judgment of a court oflaw must read. Often legal arguments
or conclusions are either clubbed into one paragraph in the original
judgment or parts ofthe same argument are given in separate paragraphs.
It requires judgment and the capacity for discernment for determining G
whether to carve out a separate paragraph from an existing paragraph
in the original judgment or to club together separate paragraphs in the
--(
original judgment of the court. Setting of paragraphs by the appellants
of their own in the judgment entailed the exercise of the brainwork,
reading and understanding ofsubject ofdisputes, different issues involved, H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Add!.) S.C.R.

A statuto1y provisions applicable and interpretation of the same and then
',
dividing them in different paragraphs so that chain ofthoughts and process +
of statement of facts and the application of law relevant to the topic
discussed is not disturbed, would require full understanding of the entire
subject of the judgment. Making paragraphs in a judgment could not be
B called a mechanical process. It requires careful consideration, discernment
and choice and thus it can be called as a work of an author. Creation
of paragraphs would obviously require extensive reading, careful study
of subject and the exercise ofjudgment to make paragraph which has
dealt with particular ac;pect of the case, and separating intermixing of a
C different subject. Creation of paragraphs by separating them from the
passage would require knowledge, sound judgment and legal skill. In
our opinion, this exercise and creation thereof has a flavour of minimum
amount ofcreativity. The said principle would also apply when foe editor
has put an input whereby different Judges' opinion has been shown to
D have been dissenting or partly dissenting or concurring, etc. It also
requires reading of the whole judgment and understanding the questions
involved and thereafter finding out whether the Judges have disagreed
or have the dissenting opinion or they are partially disagreeing and partially
agreeing to the view on a particular law point or even on facts. In these
E inputs put in by the appellants in the judgments reported in SCC, the
appellants have a copyright and nobody is permitted to utilize the same.
42. For the reasons stated in the aforesaid discussion, the appeals
are partly allowed. The High Court has already granted interim relief to
F the plaintiff-appellants by directing that though the respondent-defendants
shall be entitled to sell their CD-ROMS with the text of the judgments
of the Supreme Court along with their own head notes, editorial notes,
if any, they should not in any way copy the head notes of the plaintiff-
appellants; and that the defendant-respondents shall also not copy the
G footnotes and editorial notes appearing in the journal of the plaintiff-
appellants. It is forther directed by us that the defendant-respondents
shall not use the r.!fagraphs made by the appellants in their copy-edited
version for internal references and their editor's judgmer.t regarding the
opinions,expressed by the Judges by using phrase~ like, 'concurring',
H 'partly dissenting', etc. on the basis of reported judgments in SCC. The
EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. 263
D.B. MODAK &ANR. [NAOLEKAR, J.]
judgment of the High Court is modified to the extent that in addition to A
~ the interim relief already granted by the High Court, we have granted the
above-mentioned additional relief to the appellants.
43. In view of the decision rendered by us in the civil appeals, we
do not think it necessary to pass any order on the contempt petition. The B
contempt petition stands disposed of accordingly.
44. There shall be no order as to costs.
S.K.S. Appeals Partly allowed and
contempt petition disposed of. C