Introduction

The case of Satsang and Another v. Kiron Chandra Mukhopadhyay And Others adjudicated by the Calcutta High Court on July 18, 1972, addresses critical questions in copyright law, particularly concerning religious literary works. This case involves a dispute between Satsang, a registered religious society, and Kiron Chandra Mukhopadhyay along with Kumud Bandhu Bal over the unauthorized reproduction and publication of works authored by Sri Sri Thakur Anukul Chandra.

Summary of the Judgment

The plaintiffs, Satsang and Nani Gopal Chakrabarty, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendants from reproducing, printing, publishing, and selling unauthorized copies of several works authored by Sri Sri Thakur Anukul Chandra. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the original and compiled works of the religious preacher qualified as "literary works" under the Copyright Act of 1957. The court affirmed that these works are indeed protected literary works, granting Satsang the copyright and restraining the defendants from further infringement pending the final disposal of the suit.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that shaped the court's decision:

• University of London Press Ltd. v. University Tutorial Press Ltd. (1916): Established that written or printed materials qualify as literary works under copyright law, irrespective of their quality or style.
• British Oxygen Co. v. Liquid Air Ltd. (1925): Reinforced that correspondence and written materials are protected as literary works.
• Mishra Bandhu Karyalaya v. Shivratanlal Koshal (AIR 1970 Madh Pra 261): Discussed the necessity (or lack thereof) of registration for copyright protection under the Imperial and Indian Copyright Acts.
• V. Errabhadrarao v. B.N Sarma (AIR 1960 Andh Pra 415): Addressed copyright registration under the Hyderabad Copyright Act, which was distinguished from the central Copyright Act, 1957.
• Mack v. Petter (1872): Highlighted the protection of original compilations and the right to prevent unauthorized use.

Legal Reasoning

The court delved into whether the religious writings and their compilations by Satsang fell under the definition of "literary works" as per Section 2(y) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Citing the University of London Press case, the court determined that any work expressed in print or writing qualifies as a literary work, including religious sermons and compilations thereof.

The defendants argued that registration was a prerequisite for copyright protection, referencing the Madhya Pradesh High Court's earlier decision. However, the Calcutta High Court clarified that under the 1957 Act, registration is not mandatory for copyright protection. The court emphasized that copyright arises inherently upon the creation of an original work, irrespective of its registration status.

Furthermore, the court rejected the defendants' contention that religious teachings are not literary works. It underscored that the compilations were original works resulting from Sri Sri Thakur Anukul Chandra's intellectual labor, thus deserving protection under the Act.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for the protection of religious and spiritual literature in India:

• Affirmation of Copyright Protection: Establishes that religious texts and their compilations are unequivocally protected as literary works under the Copyright Act, 1957.
• Registration Not Mandatory: Clarifies that copyright protection is inherent and does not rely on formal registration, aligning with the principle that originality suffices for protection.
• Exclusive Rights of Societies: Empowers religious and charitable societies to hold and enforce copyrights over works created by their founders or supported members.
• Preventing Unauthorized Reproduction: Strengthens the ability of rights holders to seek legal remedies against unauthorized reproductions, ensuring the integrity of original works.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court's decision in Satsang v. Mukhopadhyay serves as a pivotal precedent in Indian copyright law, particularly concerning the protection of religious and spiritual works. By affirming that such compilations are indeed literary works deserving of copyright protection and clarifying the non-mandatory nature of registration, the judgment not only safeguards the intellectual property of religious societies but also ensures the preservation and integrity of their foundational teachings. This case underscores the judiciary's role in adapting legal principles to encompass diverse forms of intellectual and cultural expressions, thereby fostering an environment of respect and protection for creators across varied domains.