A couple of weeks ago, I discussed a law student in Bengaluru filed a case, alleging copyright infringement, against two assistant professors. Just a couple of weeks later I’ve now come across news of another student alleging copyright infringement, (Paras Kumar Choudhary vs The State of Jharkhand), but this time a criminal proceeding was instituted against the professors! This was later quashed by the Jharkhand High Court on August 10, 2023.
The proceeding was initiated by one Dr. Shambhu Nath Mishra (the informant) against his PhD guide Dr. Paras Kumar Choudhary (the petitioner) alleging that the petitioner’s book “Chero Janjiwan” is based on his PhD thesis titled “Chero Janjati Ka Samajik Ewam Arthik Jiwan.” On the above allegations, the court took cognizance of the offense u/s 63 of the Copyright Act (copyright infringement) and Section 420 of the IPC (Cheating).
The petitioner argued that the only similarity between the works was that they are both based on the “Chero tribe” and further argued that the informant has not registered its copyright and thus the proceedings should be quashed.
The court noted that the petitioner has acknowledged the contributions of the informant in his book and that the subject matter of both the works were different and thus held that the First Information Report did not disclose the commission of any cognizable offense under Section 63. The court also dismissed the charges under Section 420 of the IPC, holding that intent to cheat was missing from the case. The court observed that the order taking cognizance had the word “cognizance” filled in by hand and insinuated it to mean non-application of judicial mind. But how did it come to this conclusion? Would merely handwriting something in an order insinuate non-application of judicial mind? Or did the cognizance order only had the word “cognizance” written in? The High Court order is not clear on that. Quashing the criminal proceedings, the court presumingly suggested resorting to the court of civil jurisdiction, considering the nature of the dispute.
Though the eventual direction of the court here seems accurate, I think the court should have addressed the petitioner’s argument on mandatory registration of copyright and clarified that there is no such requirement within the Copyright Act. It is really surprising that despite clarity on the position i.e. registration is not mandatory to claim remedy against copyright infringement, (for instance, see Sanjay Soya v. Narayani Trading Company and Adyasha’s insightful post on the order) parties still argue the contrary in infringement cases.
Further, though the order states that no case u/s 63 has been made out, it sums it up in just one line- “The subject matter of the research work of the informant was different whereas the book published is different.” There is no discussion on how the court was able to reach this conclusion, did it rely only on the First Information Report or did it actually compare the two competing works? This clarity would have been necessary to highlight how the case was registered without application of mind.
However, the biggest issue with the order is the incomplete sentence in para no. 7. Concluding its findings, the court tried to make a suggestion that if the case is of civil nature and if wrong could have been addressed by a competent court of civil jurisdiction, but then it abruptly ended its sentence. The sentence is- “Further the Court finds that if this is case of civil in nature and if any wrong has been done that can be by way of appropriate proceeding before the competent court of civil jurisdiction.” I checked the High Court’s website and till now no corrigendum has been issued by the court. Assuming that the court is speaking only about the present case, the question arises will the matter hold good before the civil court when the court has categorically held that the competing works are different, without clearly disclaiming that the finding of this order should not impact other suits? One may think that the civil suit becomes unnecessary because of the above finding. However, recently on May 31 the Karnataka High Court in M/s. New Sultan Beedi Works v. State of Karnataka clarified that the Copyright Act provides for both civil and criminal remedies and the outcome of both are independent of each other.
The case highlights why criminalizing copyright infringement is a bad idea. As per the order, the FIR was lodged in 2013, and as reported here, the petitioner was even arrested on the charges of copyright infringement too. The case went on for 10 years and has been quashed only now. Leaving aside the larger debate of restricting criminalization to large-scale piracy and not one-off allegations of infringement, the nature of the offense, without the requirement of mandatory registration would plunge the enforcement agencies to deliberate upon complicated questions of originality, fair dealing, etc. However, these questions were clearly not paid heed to in the present case and ultimately it was the petitioner who had to suffer.
- SEO Powered Content & PR Distribution. Get Amplified Today.
- PlatoData.Network Vertical Generative Ai. Empower Yourself. Access Here.
- PlatoAiStream. Web3 Intelligence. Knowledge Amplified. Access Here.
- PlatoESG. Automotive / EVs, Carbon, CleanTech, Energy, Environment, Solar, Waste Management. Access Here.
- PlatoHealth. Biotech and Clinical Trials Intelligence. Access Here.
- ChartPrime. Elevate your Trading Game with ChartPrime. Access Here.
- BlockOffsets. Modernizing Environmental Offset Ownership. Access Here.
- Source: https://spicyip.com/2023/08/jharkhand-high-court-quashes-criminal-proceedings-alleging-copyright-infringement-against-a-professor.html
- :has
- :is
- :not
- $UP
- 1
- 10
- 2013
- 2023
- 31
- 420
- 7
- a
- Able
- About
- above
- abruptly
- accurate
- acknowledged
- across
- Act
- actually
- against
- agencies
- ago
- Allegations
- also
- am
- an
- and
- Another
- any
- Application
- appropriate
- ARE
- argue
- argued
- argument
- arrested
- AS
- Assistant
- AUGUST
- Bad
- based
- BE
- because
- becomes
- been
- before
- between
- Biggest
- book
- both
- but
- by
- CAN
- cartoon
- case
- cases
- charges
- cheating
- checked
- civil
- claim
- clarified
- clarity
- clear
- clearly
- come
- commission
- compare
- competent
- competing
- complicated
- conclusion
- considering
- contrary
- contributions
- copyright
- copyright infringement
- could
- Couple
- Court
- Criminal
- dealing
- debate
- Despite
- DID
- different
- direction
- Disclose
- discussion
- Dispute
- done
- dr
- e
- each
- enforcement
- etc
- Ether (ETH)
- Even
- eventual
- fair
- filed
- filled
- finding
- findings
- finds
- First
- For
- from
- further
- good
- guide
- had
- hand
- Have
- head
- Held
- here
- High
- Highlight
- highlights
- his
- hold
- holding
- How
- However
- HTML
- HTTPS
- i
- if
- image
- Impact
- in
- independent
- information
- infringement
- initiated
- inside
- instance
- intent
- issue
- Issued
- IT
- ITS
- jharkhand
- judicial
- jurisdiction
- just
- just one
- large-scale
- larger
- later
- Law
- leaving
- logo
- made
- make
- mandatory
- Matter
- max-width
- May..
- mean
- merely
- mind
- Mishra
- missing
- Nature
- necessary
- New
- news
- no
- noted
- now
- observed
- of
- on
- ONE
- only
- or
- order
- originality
- Other
- out
- Outcome
- paid
- PARA
- parties
- per
- phd
- Piracy
- plato
- Plato Data Intelligence
- PlatoData
- plunge
- position
- present
- prison
- Proceedings
- Professor
- provides
- published
- question
- Questions
- reach
- really
- recently
- registered
- Registration
- rely
- report
- Reported
- requirement
- research
- restricting
- Section
- see
- seems
- sentence
- should
- something
- speaking
- State
- States
- Still
- Student
- subject
- such
- Suit
- sultan
- sums
- surprising
- taking
- that
- The
- The State
- then
- There.
- These
- thesis
- they
- think
- this
- though?
- Thus
- till
- time
- titled
- to
- too
- took
- Trading
- tried
- two
- Ultimately
- under
- upon
- vs
- was
- Way..
- Website
- Weeks
- went
- were
- when
- whereas
- WHO
- why
- will
- with
- within
- without
- Word
- Work
- works
- would
- written
- Wrong
- years
- zephyrnet