- JUDGMENT SUMMARY: Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Ltd.
- DATE OF JUDGMENT: 8 August 1986
- BENCH: S.B. Wad, J.
Facts:
The appellant, Mannu Bhandari, was the author of Hindi novel 'Aap Ka Bunty'. She had copyright in work, including the exclusive right to make a cinematograph film in respect of the work. In April 1983 she assigned her cinematographic rights in the novel to the Kala Vikas Pictures Pvt. Ltd. in exchange of Rs. 15000 to make a film named ‘Samay ki Dhara’. It was decided that the author would allow the scriptwriter to make certain modifications in the novel in discussion with her to make it suitable for a successful film-version of it. Differences arose between the parties. The first objection was about the title of the film, which was resolved by the parties. Other objections regarding the portrayal of character, use of vulgar dialogues and the end of the film were also raised. In the novel, in the end, the child was admitted to a hostel by his father while the film showed that the child died of starvation after he ran away from the house.
She moved to the District Court praying for the permanent injunction against the screening of the film, where the court denied the injunction. Hence, the appeal was filed before the High Court of Delhi. The dispute was settled out of court by the parties. However, on request of counsel for the parties Justice, S.B. Wad pronounced the judgment as there was no judicial decision before this case on the interpretation of Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS: Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957
ISSUES:
The main issues in question before the court were:
- What is the scope of Section 57?
- Where does the freedom of expression of Author end and freedom of Directors begin?
- What are the powers of the court under Section 57?
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT:
Appellant's Contentions: The appellant contended that while her novel was a literary work, the film has been heavily mutilated and commercialized and if released it will lower her reputation as a research scholar in the eyes of the public.
Respondent's Contentions: The respondents argued that Clause (b) of the contract permits modifications to be made by the Director. Modifications made were made after discussions with the author, and she had agreed to the said modifications. As per the respondents, the appellant filed the suit with the ulterior motive of extracting more money than what was being paid to her under the contract.
Court's observations:
The court, while discussing the object and scope of Section 57, made some crucial observations. The court observed that Section 57 was a statutory recognition of the intellectual property of the author, and therefore it should be protected with special care. The court observed further that the author should have a right to claim authorship of the work as well as a right to restrain infringement or to claim damages for infringement. These rights are available to the author even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright.
The court stated that “the special protection of the intellectual property is emphasized by the fact that the remedies of a restraint order or damages can be claimed: "even after the assignment either wholly or partially of the said copyright". Section 57 thus clearly over-rides the terms of the contract of assignment of the copyright. To put it differently, the contract of assignment would be read subject to the provisions of Section 57, and the terms of the contract cannot negate the special rights and remedies guaranteed by Section 57 The Contract of Assignment will have to be so construed as to be consistent with Section 57. The assignee of a copyright cannot claim any rights or immunities based on the contract, which are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 57”.
Justice, Wad made an important observation regarding the court’s powers under Section 57 of the Act. He observed that “The Court does not sit as a sentinel of public morals or super censor in the exercise of its powers under the said section. It cannot impose its views (prudish or liberated) on sex or its depiction in the works of art. The concern of the court is to examine how for the new 'avatar' is true and authentic and what changes are necessary due to constraints of a medium”.
The court directed the deletion of some sentences from the film on the ground that they distorted the character and were unnecessary changes. The court justified the end of the film, but directed deletion of the scenes that were 'too crude, brash and nauseating'.
The court after disposing of all the objections by directing marginal modifications and deletions upheld the decision of trial court to refuse ad interim restraint order and to allow the film to be released.
Before the judgment could be pronounced, the parties reached a settlement, but on request of counsel for the parties Justice, S.B. Wad pronounced the judgment as there was no judicial decision before this case on the interpretation of Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Conclusion:
The present case was the first dispute in respect of the author’s moral rights that came before the court 30 years after the enactment of the Copyright Act, 1957. It is clear that Section 57 overrides the terms of the contract of assignment of copyright. The assignee of a copyright cannot maintain any rights or immunities based on the contract which are not consistent with the provisions of Section 57.
