Hearing the appeal of international publishing houses, whose lawyers cited foreign laws and statutes to emphasise their case against photocopy, the High Court on Friday cautioned against interpreting and implementing offshore laws in Indian context.
“Whilst it is true that winds from across the border should be welcome in a country, but care has to be taken to retain the fragrance thereof and filter out the remainder. Reference to foreign case law while interpreting a municipal statute has to be done with care and caution. Language used in a statute covering a field of law in different municipal jurisdictions may be different and we caution ourselves that some minor points of details here and there and difference in the language here and there may assume importance,” the Bench of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Yogesh Khanna observed.
The debate before the Division Bench focused on the decisions rendered by the courts in United States of America, United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand.
The Bench while deciding the appeal emphasised on equitable access to education and suggested development of “knowledge modules”, like the course packs in the instant case.
‘Education is foundation’
“Education alone is the foundation on which a progressive and prosperous society can be built. Teaching is an essential part of education, at least in the formative years, and perhaps till post-graduate level.
“It is thus necessary, by whatever nomenclature we may call them, the development of knowledge modules, having the right content, to take care of the needs of the learner. We may loosely call them textbooks. We may loosely call them guide books. We may loosely call them reference books. We may loosely call them course packs. So fundamental is education to a society – it warrants the promotion of equitable access to knowledge to all segments, irrespective of their caste, creed and financial position. Of course, the more indigent the learner, the greater the responsibility to ensure equitable access.”
Reproduction or publication?
The Division Bench corrected the reasoning adopted by the single judge order in the case as it noted, “Publication need not be for the benefit of or available to or meant for reading by all the members of the community. A targeted audience would also be a public as rightly urged by the learned counsel for the appellants. But, a publication would have the element of profit, which would be missing in the case of reproduction of a work by a teacher to be used in the course of instruction. That apart, if reproduction includes the plural, it cannot be held that making of multiple copies would be impermissible. It happens in law that footprints of one concept fall in the territory of the other, but that does not mean that the former should be restricted.”
