Justice Endlaw held that photocopied course packs for university students did not infringe copyright. The publishers appealed, warning it would make academic texts freely copiable. What happened next is the part most accounts leave out.
The background
The Delhi High Court had ruled that creating course packs for educational purposes did not constitute copyright infringement — a landmark decision resting on Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act, which exempts reproduction of a work by a teacher or pupil in the course of instruction.
The appeal
On 5 October 2016, The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of The University of Oxford and others appealed, contending the decision was gravely erroneous and would make academic texts freely accessible and permit wholesale copying of books.
Their arguments were essentially three:
- Section 52(1)(i) permits only reproduction, not publication or distribution — so compiling and selling course packs falls outside it;
- the exception applies to pupils and teachers, not to universities as institutions; and
- the judgment conflicts with India’s international obligations — the Berne Convention’s three-step test and Article 13 of TRIPS — which require that permitted reproductions not conflict with the normal exploitation of the work or unreasonably prejudice the author’s legitimate interests.
On 6 October 2016, the Division Bench refused the publishers’ application for an interim injunction and listed the matter for arguments on 29 November 2016. The publishers also placed before the court a course pack allegedly published in May 2016 in breach of earlier restraining orders.
How it was resolved
The Division Bench delivered its judgment in December 2016. It did not restore the injunction, and broadly upheld the availability of the educational exception — while differing from the Single Judge on one significant point. Rather than treating course packs as exempt as a matter of course, it held that the reproduction must be justified by the purpose of educational instruction, and remanded for a factual determination of whether the extracts copied were necessary for that purpose.
That was a meaningful refinement. The exception is real and broad, but it is not unlimited — the test became necessity for instruction, to be assessed on the facts, rather than a blanket permission.
Then the case ended. In March 2017, the publishers withdrew the suit, stating they did not wish to pursue the litigation further. The withdrawal left the Division Bench’s judgment standing as the governing statement of the law, with no Supreme Court consideration of the questions raised.
Why it still matters
The case remains the leading Indian authority on the educational exception, and its reasoning is notably firm on the underlying principle: copyright is not a divine right, and the statutory exceptions are not concessions grudgingly given but part of how the balance between authors and public interest is struck.
For universities and photocopy shops, the practical position is that course packs are permissible where the copying is genuinely required for instruction — not that any quantity of copying is acceptable because a course is involved. For publishers, the outcome demonstrated the reputational cost of the litigation, which drew sustained criticism from academics worldwide, including from authors of the very books at issue.
The takeaways
- Section 52(1)(i) permits reproduction in the course of instruction.
- The Division Bench added a necessity test — copying must be justified by the educational purpose.
- No injunction was granted at any stage of the appeal.
- The publishers withdrew in March 2017, leaving the judgment standing.
Frequently asked questions
Are university course packs legal in India? Yes, where the reproduction is justified as necessary for the purpose of educational instruction, under Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act.
What did the publishers argue on appeal? That Section 52(1)(i) permits only reproduction and not publication or distribution, that it applies to pupils and teachers rather than universities, and that the ruling breached the Berne three-step test and TRIPS Article 13.
How did the case end? The publishers withdrew the suit in March 2017, after the Division Bench declined to grant an injunction and remanded for a factual assessment of necessity.
Is there a limit to what can be copied for teaching? Yes — the Division Bench held the copying must be justified by the purpose of instruction, a question of fact rather than a blanket permission.
Useful official resources
- The Copyright Act, 1957
- Delhi High Court