GIRISH GANDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions involve similar facts and law, challenging the vires of various Sections of the Copy Right Act, therefore, are being decided together.

(2.) The facts are similar, therefore, the facts are being taken from D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 660/89 (Girish Chandani v. Union of India). The petitioner is carrying the business of keeping library of Video Cassettes, T.Vs. and V. C. Rs. for letting them on hire to the customers for viewing them at their homes. The petitioner submits that even though he is keeping Video Cassettes which are duly certified, films of which the copy rights are sold by the producers to the copy right holders and were prepared after obtaining necessary licence and consent from the owner of the copy right and he purchases video cassettes from the market which are again supplied by either the producer or the copy right holder or the persons having necessary licence and consent from the owner of the copy right holders etc., he still apprehends that powers under Section 64(1) can be invoked against the him without any necessity.

(3.) Even though, no overt act has been taken or initiated against the petitioner but still because of the provisions of Section 64 of the Copy Right Act, 1957, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, apprehending that in case the provisions of Section 64 are not declared ultra vires on the ground of arbitrariness and for the reason that no guidelines have been provided in the said Section as to check the police officer concerned in seizing the cassettes from the video parlour. The petitioner would suffer harassment and unnecessary litigation, if the provisions of Section 64 of the Act are allowed to remain intact and not declared ultra vires. In the writ petition, the petitioner had also challenged Section 19, Section 52-A and Section 64 but the arguments have been confined to the challenge of Section 64 only and no arguments are addressed on other Sections of the Copy Right Act, 1957.