ABSTRACT

TOPIC: Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma 1996 (16) PTC 670

Civic Chandran v. Ammini Amma is considered as one of the landmark case in Indian
copyright law. It was decided by Kerala High Court. The question of fair dealing came up for
consideration in this landmark judgment.
“Copyright” under Black’s dictionary is, “the right in literary property as recognized ad
sanctioned by positive law. An intangible, incorporeal right granted to the author or originator
of certain literary or artistic production whereby he is invested for a specified period with the
sole and exclusive privilege of multiplying copies of the same and publishing and selling them.”
The above mentioned case deals with the subject of infringement of copyright and the acts
which do not amount to the infringement of the copyright (section 52). An infringement is not
confined to literal and literal and exact repetition or reproduction; it includes also the various
modes in which the matter of any work may be adopted, imitated, transferred, or reproduced,
with more or less colorable alteration to disguise the piracy. But under the provisions section
52, the following acts do not constitute to infringement of copyright.
A. Fair dealing with any work, excluding computer programme, for the purpose of-
I. Private or personal use including research;
II. Criticism or review;
III. Reporting of current events and current affairs, reporting of lecture in
public.

The facts of this case were that the defendants in this case had published a play called “Ningal
are communistakki” which was intended to be a counter-drama to the original play written by
the famous writer Thoppil Bhasi who was also an active member of communist party called
“Ningal enne communistakki”. The original drama was instrumental in the political victory of
the communist party in Kerala. The plaintiffs in this case who were also the legal heirs of late
Mr. Bhasi alleged that the counter drama had infringed upon their copyright in the original
drama by copying certain relevant parts and imitated into the counter-drama. They then prayed
for an interlocutory order restraining the staging of counter-drama.
The Additional District Judge who was hearing the suit granted the interlocutory injunction in
favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the order the defendants approached Kerala High Court
and appealed against the order and beseeched it to set aside the order restraining them from
staging this play.
The court then referred to Hubbard v. Vosper (supra) and RG Anand and concluded that the
play was meant to be a critique and therefore, constituted fair dealing under section 52. It
observed that the latter work (counter-drama) was not market competitor to the prior work, and
by itself constituted a literary work with some amount of originality. Moreover, the court held
that the nature of the work, that is to criticize the social structures in Kerala, by itself meant
that certain sequences, events and incidents would be common to both prior and subsequent
work, and that the latter was not meant to imitate the former. Injunction was therefore, denied.
Hence, the decision of the Addl. District Judge was reversed and it was held that even if the
copying was of substantial portions, the same could be excused as it constituted fair dealing.

The case has been very well be considered as a landmark decision on fair dealing in the Indian
copyright law. This case has been referred to in two judicial decisions till now.