B.V. Nagarathna JUDGMENT
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals arise from an interim order dated 2 August 2021 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in a batch of petitions. The writ petitions have been instituted before the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the validity of Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules 20131. The High Court has, by its interim order, directed that:
(i) No copyrighted work may be broadcast in terms of Rule 29 without issuing a prior notice;
(ii) Details pertaining to the broadcast, particularly the duration, time slots and the like, including the quantum of royalty payable may be furnished within fifteen days of the broadcast or performance;
(iii) Compliance be effected with a modified regime of post facto, as opposed to prior compliance mandated by Rule 29(4) and the statutory mandate of a twenty four hour prior notice shall be substituted by a provision for compliance within fifteen days after the broadcast; and
(iii) The interim order will be confined to the Petitioners before the High Court and the copyrighted works of the second and third Respondents which are sought to be exploited.
3. The primary submission which has been urged on behalf of the Appellants is that the interim order of the High Court has the effect of re-writing Rule 29(4) of the Rules framed in pursuance of the provisions of Section 31D and Section 78(2)(cD) of the Copyright Act 19572.
4. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned Senior Counsel, have appeared on behalf of the Appellants. Mr. Navroz Seervai and Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior Counsel, have appeared on behalf of the contesting Respondents, who are the original Petitioners before the High Court.
5. Since the interim direction has been issued in the writ petitions moved before the High Court and the Petitioners before the High Court are represented in these proceedings through counsel, on caveat, we are disposing of the appeals at this stage.
6. The batch of writ petitions before the High Court is listed for final disposal on 4 October 2021. A grievance has been made on behalf of the contesting Respondents that the Appellants have not filed counter affidavits in response to the petitions. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants assured the Court that they would do so expeditiously, well before the next date of listing so as to facilitate the final disposal of the writ petitions.
7. The facts, insofar as........