LAWS(MAD)-2022-4-73

NEXT RADIO LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 20, 2022
Next Radio Limited Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed to challenge the constitutional validity of Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013 [for brevity, "the Rules of 2013"]. It is not only in reference to Article 19(1)(a) and (g) of the Constitution of India, but by alleging it to be in conflict with Sec. 31-D of the Copyright Act, 1957 [for brevity, "the Act of 1957"].

(2.) Narrating the facts of the case, Mr.Arvind Pandian, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.Abhishek Malhotra, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, stated that the first petitioner (Next Radio Limited) is holder of FM licenses granted by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. It is operating commercial radio network since 2007 under the brand name of "Radio One". The second petitioner is the Association of Radio Operators for India and is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The association was formed to promote the interest of its members and to take steps to protect their rights. Since the petitioners are either by themselves or in association engaged in the business of broadcasting the music, they make compliances of the Act of 1957 and the Rules of 2013. The second respondent is a leading music company operating in India for more than 100 years and the third respondent claims to be a performance rights organisation licensing its members sound recordings for communication to public in the areas of public performance and broadcast.

(3.) Learned counsel giving the background of the case submitted that an amendment in the Act of 1957 was brought by the Copyright (Amendment) Act of 2012 to introduce Sec. 31-D of the Act of 1957. It was to provide new rights in the form of a statutory licence for broadcasting of works. It was brought to limit the monopolistic effect and to balance the economic rights of the copyright owners and the rights of users. The main aim of the amendment was to benefit and protect consumers' interest. Sec. 31-D of the Act of 1957 was found to be in consonance with India's international obligations under Berne Convention, Rome Convention and Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.