On 16 September 2016, the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark: it dismissed international publishers’ suit against photocopied course packs at Delhi University, holding that educational reproduction under Section 52(1)(i) isn’t infringement. Justice Endlaw’s reasoning reframed what copyright is for.
Note: This is the single-judge (Justice Endlaw) judgment of September 2016. On the publishers’ appeal, a Division Bench (December 2016) modified it — restoring the suit for trial on whether the packs served educational instruction, with no page limit and no interim injunction — and the publishers ultimately withdrew in 2017. See our note on the Division Bench ruling.
The dispute
Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press and Taylor & Francis sued Rameshwari Photocopy Services and the University of Delhi (Aug 2012), seeking a permanent injunction against photocopying, reproducing and distributing copies of their publications on a large scale. The photocopy shop had a DU licence to make course packs.
The publishers alleged huge financial loss as students stopped buying textbooks. Students countered that course packs were indispensable given textbook prices; DU supported the shop, arguing reproduction for educational purposes is a reasonable educational need, not infringement.
The defendant explained: a small campus shop provided photocopies at nominal rates, gave DU 3,000 free copies/month, copied only recommended extracts (students wouldn’t buy whole books for one extract), and served only educational use — not commercial exploitation. DU invoked Sections 52(1)(a) and (i) (fair use for education), and noted the publishers hadn’t shown assignments from the authors.
The path to judgment
A commissioner was appointed; the court initially urged DU to consider an IRRO licence for course packs; and in Nov 2012 the shop was restrained pending interim relief. DU appealed; academics formed SPEAK and students ASEAK, arguing students couldn’t study without photocopied notes.
The ruling
After four years, Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw lifted the ban, holding that Indian law must account for the country’s socio-economic conditions (resource constraints), and treating students’ interest as paramount — focusing on affordable access through photocopying. Key holdings:
- “to issue copies of the work to the public” (Section 14(a)(ii)) isn’t the same as “making copies of the work.”
- Section 52 exceptions must be interpreted like the rights of a copyright owner — not narrowly — since the legislature declared those acts not to be infringement.
- If a student copies a library book (by hand, photocopier or phone camera) for private/personal use, it’s fair dealing — so it’s unreasonable to treat DU doing the same (due to resource constraints) as infringement: “When the effect of the action is the same, the difference in the mode of action cannot make a difference so as to make one an offence.”
- The photocopy shop wasn’t a competitor — it only compiled parts of prescribed textbooks.
Justice Endlaw framed the philosophy: “Copyright… is designed… to stimulate activity and progress in the arts for the intellectual enrichment of the public. Copyright is intended to increase and not to impede the harvest of knowledge.” The suit was dismissed without costs.
A balance still to strike
A landmark for education-friendly copyright — but arguably a balance is needed so publishers’ rights and students’ interests coexist. In this author’s view, IRRO licensing could reconcile them: ensuring no commercial exploitation while keeping publishers’ interests in view.
The takeaways
- Educational course packs are fair use — Section 52(1)(i), read broadly.
- Section 52 exceptions aren’t read narrowly — they’re actual rights, not grudging exemptions.
- Same effect, same treatment — a university copying is no different from a student copying.
- The purpose of copyright is to increase knowledge — not impede it (Justice Endlaw).
Frequently asked questions
Did the DU photocopy case make course packs legal? The 2016 single-judge ruling held that photocopied course packs for education fall under the Section 52(1)(i) exception and aren’t infringement; the Division Bench later remanded for trial, and the publishers withdrew in 2017.
Is copying by a university treated differently from copying by a student? No — Justice Endlaw held that where the effect is the same, the mode of copying can’t turn one into an offence, so a university’s copying for education is fair dealing like a student’s.
Are Section 52 fair-use exceptions read narrowly? No — the court held they must be interpreted like the rights of a copyright owner, not narrowly, since the legislature declared those acts non-infringing.
What was IRRO’s proposed role? Licensing course packs through the Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation was floated as a way to balance publishers’ interests with student access.
Legislation referred to
- The Copyright Act, 1957