Publishers sued over photocopied “course packs” sold to Delhi University students — and lost. The Delhi High Court held that reproducing copyrighted work for educational instruction under Section 52(1)(i) isn’t infringement, with no page limit. And in the end, the publishers walked away.
Note: After this Division Bench ruling, the case went back to trial — but the publishers withdrew the suit in March 2017, so it was never contested further. The Section 52(1)(i) educational-use position stood.
The dispute
In The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of University of Oxford v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services, the publishers appealed Justice Endlaw’s September 2016 ruling, which had dismissed their suit on the ground that photocopied course packs fell within the exception in Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
On 9 December 2016, the Division Bench (Justices Nandrajog and Yogesh) set aside the single judge’s verdict — restoring the suit and identifying two triable issues:
- whether including copyrighted work in a course pack is justified as fair use for educational purposes; and
- whether photocopying a book in its entirety is permissible.
The arguments
Publishers: reproducing copyrighted work for distribution to the public isn’t permissible and amounts to infringement. Respondents: the use was solely educational, falling under fair use and not infringement.
The ruling
After two weeks of argument, the Division Bench held that distributing course packs (pages from the publishers’ books) to students via photocopy shops is not infringement, so long as the packs are shown to be used solely to aid educational instruction. It read Section 52(1)(i) — permitting “reproduction of any work by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction” — widely, so certain acts aren’t infringement.
Crucially, the court held there’s no limit on the number of pages that can be photocopied from the publishers’ books — the only requirement being that the packs be used for educational instruction.
The Bench remanded the case to trial to test whether the course packs meet that purpose, and declined an interim injunction — allowing the respondents to continue producing course packs, but requiring them to keep records of what they photocopied and supplied.
The reaction — and a balance question
Academics and students welcomed the ruling as granting easy access to education. But the piece argues the court failed to balance publishers’ and students’ interests — and that licensing through the IRRO (Indian Reprographic Rights Organisation) might have been a more appropriate solution. Notably, Oxford students wrote an open letter urging OUP not to appeal to the Supreme Court — and the publishers ultimately withdrew.
The takeaways
- Educational course packs can be fair use — Section 52(1)(i) read widely, “in the course of instruction.”
- No page limit — the court set none, requiring only genuine educational use.
- No interim injunction — but record-keeping was ordered; the matter went to trial.
- The publishers withdrew (2017) — leaving the educational-use position intact; licensing (IRRO) remains a debated alternative.
Frequently asked questions
Are photocopied course packs legal in India? The Delhi High Court held that course packs used solely for educational instruction fall within the Section 52(1)(i) exception and aren’t copyright infringement.
Is there a limit on how many pages can be photocopied for a course pack? No — the court set no page limit, requiring only that the packs be used for educational instruction.
Did the publishers appeal to the Supreme Court? No — after the Division Bench ruling and remand for trial, the publishers withdrew the suit in 2017.
What is Section 52(1)(i)? It permits reproduction of a work by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction — read widely by the court to cover educational course packs.
Legislation referred to
- The Copyright Act, 1957