Published On: 22nd August 2025
Authored By: Devesh Mandhata
Indian Institute of Management Rohtak [IIM-R]
Court: High Court of Bombay at Goa
Judges: Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Valmiki Menezes
Petitioner:
- Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL)
- Sonotek Cassettes Company (in the connected Writ Petition No. 254 of 2024)
Respondents:
- State of Goa (Department of Home)
- The Office of the DGP, Goa Police Headquarters
- Department of Tourism, Goa
- Department of Art and Culture, Goa
- Novex Communications Private Limited (in Writ Petition No. 253 of 2024 only)
The petitioners, who are copyright owners/societies, filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging a circular dated 30.01.2024 issued by the State of Goa (Respondent No. 1) .
BREIF FACTS
The Government of Goa’s Department of Home (General) Secretariat issued a circular on January 30, 2024, which was directly inspired by a public notice issued by the Central Government’s Department of Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) on July 24, 2023. The DPIIT’s notice clarified copyright exemptions for performance rights in the marriage functions on grounds of public interest. However, the Goa Government’s circular has now become the subject of a writ petition filed by Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL).
Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL), a company that holds public performance rights for a vast repertoire of sound recordings and serves as a one-stop platform for accessing copyrighted music. The PPL, was previously registered as a copyright society under Sec 33 of the Copyright Act. Due to the amendments introduced to the Copyright Act in 2014, all registered copyright societies were required to re-register. In response to this statutory mandate,
the petitioner voluntarily surrendered its existing registration.
The circular published by The Government of Goa’s Department of Home (General) Secretariat (Herein after referred to as Impugned Circular), had been received stating that in respect of religious ceremonies including marriage/wedding festivities there is an insistence by certain organization/hotels to get permission from copyright societies for performance of musical work, communication to the public sound recording etc. in this regard the public notice from the central government dated 24.07.2023 had a very clear stance which states that such musical performance of musical works etc, at religious ceremonies, including weddings does not amount to violation of the copyright Act 1957.
Instances up in such permission/NOCs from the copyright societies is on violation of section 52(1) (za) of Copyright Act 1957. This action, PPL contends, is inconsistent with the law and has adversely impacted its rights as a copyright holder. PPL has filed a writ petition with the Bombay High Court to contest the impugned circular, arguing that the Goa Government’s overreach of authority by undermining its ability to collect royalties and pursue legal action against copyright violators.
ISSUE RAISED
- Does the circular issued by the State of Goa on 30.01.2024 regarding the application of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act improperly expand the scope of this statutory provision beyond its intended meaning?
- Does the State government have the authority to interpret and clarify the scope of copyright law provisions through such circulars, or does this overstep their jurisdiction and potentially interfere with the rights of copyright owners and the proper legal mechanisms for resolving copyright disputes?
COURT RULING
The Bombay High Court at Goa, in its decision on Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) v. State of Goa, quashed the impugned circular, ruling that it was illegal and in violation of the Copyright Act, 1957. The court found that the impugned circular, which sought to exempt public performances of copyrighted sound recordings during wedding functions from royalty payments, exceeded the scope of Section 52(1) (za) of the Copyright Act. The section provides an exemption for performances during bona fide religious ceremonies, which includes marriage processions and certain social festivities. However, the Goa Government’s circular expanded this exemption to include broader wedding-related events, which the court deemed an overreach.
The court ruled that the Goa Government lacked the jurisdiction to interpret or modify statutory provisions and that the circular improperly extended copyright exemptions. It emphasized that the state, through its Department of Home, had assumed a legislative role by issuing a directive that altered the meaning and scope of the Copyright Act. This, according to the court, was a violation of the separation of powers, as only the judiciary or the legislature can make such determinations.
The court highlighted that copyright holders like PPL are entitled to civil and criminal remedies under the Copyright Act, and the Goa Government’s circular unlawfully restricted their ability to enforce these rights. By directing the police to refrain from taking action against those playing copyrighted music at weddings without paying royalties, the impugned circular interfered with the enforcement mechanisms set out in the Act, undermining the legal rights of copyright holders. Consequently, the court ruled that the circular was unlawful and void, restoring the legal protections granted to copyright holders under Indian law.
UNDERSTANDING THE COURTS REASONING
Upon a thorough examination of the case record, I have identified six primary bases, aiding in understating the reasoning of the court.
Executive Overreach
One of the main reasons for the court’s decision was the separation of powers. The court pointed out that the Goa Government’s Department of Home, had exceeded its executive authority by issuing a circular that interpreted and expanded a statutory provision (Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act). This, the court observed, was a legislative function, a responsibility that lies with the Parliament or through adjudication by the courts. By issuing a circular with a broader interpretation of the copyright exemptions, the Goa Government effectively usurped a judicial function, which is unlawful in India’s constitutional framework.
Conflict with Copyright Law
The court was clear that the Copyright Act, 1957, contains specific provisions balancing the rights of copyright holders and exemptions for public use in certain cases. Section 52(1)(za) being one such section, offers an exemption for performances during bona fide religious ceremonies, including marriages and social festivities directly related to them. However, the impugned circular widened this definition to include all social events associated with weddings, and applied this exemption too broadly, thus depriving copyright owners like PPL of their statutory rights. The court reasoned that such a blanket exemption was unjustifiable and unsupported by the text of the law.
Impact on Enforcement of Copyright Rights
The court was concerned with the practical consequences of the impugned circular. By instructing the police not to entertain complaints of copyright infringement at wedding functions, the circular effectively prevented copyright holders from enforcing their rights under the Copyright Act. This interference with enforcement mechanisms (like the right to seek royalties or the ability to file infringement actions) was seen as a major reason for the court to strike down the circular. The proper enforcement of copyright laws, the court held, is crucial to maintaining the commercial viability of intellectual property.
Case-by-Case Adjudication
The court emphasized that copyright exemptions under Section 52(1) (za) require fact specific analysis. Not every public performance at a marriage function automatically qualifies as exempt from copyright liability. The court rejected the Goa Government’s approach of using a blanket exemption for all wedding-related events, instead insisting that each case must be evaluated based on its specific facts to determine whether the exemption applies. The court affirmed that this determination should be made by the appropriate legal forum (courts) and not by administrative orders.
Circular’s Distortion of the Law
The court highlighted that the impugned circular misrepresented the law by using the term “wedding” instead of “marriage” and including general “social festivities,” which go beyond the narrow exceptions in the Copyright Act. The court found that the Goa Government had incorrectly conflated different legal concepts, thereby altering the legislative intent of Section 52(1) (za). The inclusion of terms not found in the statute amounted to an unlawful expansion of the copyright exemption, leading to the impugned circular’s invalidation.
Balance of Interests
The Copyright Act is designed to balance the interests of copyright holders (like PPL) with public interest in accessing cultural works under certain circumstances. The court reiterated that this balance should not be disturbed through administrative overreach. The right to enforce copyright is a commercial right with significant implications, and administrative bodies should not interfere with it without due authority.
ASSESSMENT OF THE JUDICIAL DECISION
This case depicts delicate interplay between intellectual property rights and public interest. The decision reinforces the fundamental principles of copyright law while also critiquing the executive branch’s potential for overreaching its authority in interpreting and applying legal provisions. The court’s ruling offers valuable insights for legal practitioners and policymakers alike, demonstrating the importance of maintaining a balanced approach that respects both the rights of intellectual property owners and the broader interests of society. The assessment is carried out on the following grounds.
Executive Over-reach and Separation of Powers Doctrine
The court’s judgment follows the Doctrine of separation of powers, which maintains that the executive, legislature, and judiciary must remain distinct, with each branch having its own defined role. In the context of this case, the Goa Government’s Department of Home overstepped its executive authority by issuing a circular that interpreted the provisions of Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act.
A recent case reinforcing this principle is Shanti Fragrances v. Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court ruled that executive instructions or circulars cannot exceed the authority granted by law or modify legislative provisions. The court found that while the government may issue guidelines or notices, these cannot alter statutory rights without legislative backing.1
As such in this case, the Bombay High Court ruled that the Goa Government’s circular, which sought to expand copyright exemptions, violated the separation of powers doctrine by encroaching upon judicial and legislative functions. The court applied the same logic in limiting executive authority to interpret or expand statutory exemptions. In Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India reaffirmed that the executive cannot unilaterally interpret laws beyond their statutory scope. This case emphasized that executive actions must strictly comply with legislative provisions, thereby preventing arbitrary or excessive interpretations, a doctrine upheld in the case at hand.2
Case-by-Case Determination and the Need for Judicial Adjudication
The court emphasized that determining whether a public performance during weddings falls under Section 52(1) (za) requires a case-by-case assessment, particularly in situations where the commercial use of copyrighted works may be involved. The court rejected the broad interpretation of the Goa Government, which had effectively granted a blanket exemption for all performances related to weddings and social festivities.
The Bombay High Court in Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. stressed the necessity of judicial scrutiny in determining whether the use of sound recordings at large commercial events falls under copyright exemptions. This judgment reaffirms the principle that blanket exemptions cannot be granted, and factual assessments are required in each case.3
Doctrine of “Ultra Vires” and Executive Action
The Goa Government’s circular was declared ultra vires the Copyright Act, meaning that it went beyond the authority granted to the government by the law. The doctrine of ultra vires, which means “beyond powers,” is frequently invoked when an executive body exercises powers not conferred upon it by law.
This principle is evident in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, where the Karnataka High Court quashed a government notification that sought to regulate the sale of alcohol in ways not provided by law. The court held that the government could not issue notifications that effectively amended or contradicted statutory provisions.4In case at hand the Bombay High Court applied this same doctrine, ruling that the circular’s attempt to expand the copyright exemption was void ab initio since it exceeded the government’s executive powers under the Copyright Act, 1957. In Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, the Gujarat High Court also applied the ultra vires doctrine to strike down an administrative order that contradicted the statutory provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.5 This case reinforced the idea that executive orders must strictly adhere to the legislative framework and cannot override statutory protections, a principle that underpinned the court’s reasoning in PPL v. State of Goa.
Copyright Law and Balance Between Private Rights and Public Interest
The balance between private rights and public interest is a recurring theme in intellectual property law, especially when it comes to performance rights. In PPL v. State of Goa, the court was careful to protect the commercial rights of copyright holders while acknowledging the public interest in the limited use of copyrighted works during bona fide religious ceremonies.
The Supreme Court recently addressed this balance in Sony Music Entertainment v. Triller Inc. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the commercial rights of copyright owners, particularly in the age of digital media, where public performances and reproductions can be widespread. The court ruled that fair use and exemptions must be interpreted narrowly, especially when the works are used for commercial purposes.6 This aligns with the ruling in PPL v. State of Goa, where the court stressed that broad interpretations of Section 52(1)(za) would infringe on the economic interests of copyright holders like PPL.
Impact of Public Notices and Circulars
The final assessment is that the Bombay High Court ruled that while government bodies may issue public notices, these cannot override statutory provisions.
The principle was reaffirmed in The Football Players’ Association of India v. All India Football Federation, where the Delhi High Court ruled that public notices or circulars cannot alter the legal obligations set out in statutes. The court ruled that public notices must remain informative in nature and cannot impose new obligations or expand the scope of statutory provisions.7 Similarly, in PPL v. State of Goa, the court held that the Goa Government’s circular, although framed as a public notice, had unlawfully expanded the statutory exemption under Section 52(1) (za).
CASE BREIFS OF CASES USED
To avoid disrupting the flow of the text, the case briefs and corresponding decisions for each case are presented here.
- Shanti Fragrances v. Union of India [(2022) SCC OnLine Del 1542]
Facts: Shanti Fragrances, a manufacturer and distributor of perfumes and incense, challenged a notification issued by the Central Government, which imposed restrictions on certain fragrances under the Environment (Protection) Act. The company argued that the government’s notification went beyond the powers conferred by the Act, as it imposed environmental regulations on substances that were not listed in the original statute. Shanti Fragrances contended that the notification was an illegal attempt to modify statutory provisions through executive action, without legislative backing.
Court’s Decision: The Delhi High Court ruled that the executive notification was ultra vires, meaning that it exceeded the powers granted under the law. The court held that executive orders or circulars cannot override or alter statutory provisions without explicit legislative authorization. The government was restricted from enforcing the notification, as it was beyond the scope of its statutory authority.
- Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India
Facts: This case arose from a power struggle between the Delhi Government and the Central Government over control of administrative services in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The Delhi Government argued that it should have full control over appointments and transfers of bureaucrats in Delhi, while the Central Government maintained that it had ultimate authority over services in the national capital.
Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Delhi Government, stating that while Delhi is not a full state, the executive power over services should rest with the elected government of Delhi, except in matters relating to public order, police, and land. The court also emphasized that executive actions must strictly adhere to legislative provisions, preventing unilateral interpretations by the executive without statutory backing.
- Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises
Facts: Novex Communications, a performance rights company, sued Zee Entertainment for broadcasting copyrighted music at events and award shows without acquiring the necessary public performance licenses. Zee argued that it had obtained licenses from the producers of the music, which should cover its broadcasting rights.
Court’s Decision: The Bombay High Court ruled in favor of Novex Communications, stating that broadcasting copyrighted music without a valid license from the performance rights holder (in this case, Novex) constitutes infringement. The court emphasized that even if the broadcaster has other licenses, it must obtain specific performance rights licenses when publicly performing or broadcasting music.
- Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka Facts: Khoday Distilleries Ltd., a major producer of alcoholic beverages, challenged a notification issued by the State of Karnataka, which imposed restrictions on the retail sale and distribution of alcohol in ways not provided for under the Karnataka Excise Act. Khoday argued that the government had introduced a new system of alcohol distribution that contradicted the statutory provisions of the Excise Act and was damaging to its business.
Court’s Decision: The Karnataka High Court ruled that the notification was ultra vires (beyond the powers of the state), as it imposed restrictions that were not authorized by the statute. The court quashed the notification, holding that the state government cannot impose additional requirements or change statutory rules without proper legislative amendments. This decision upheld the ultra vires doctrine, which limits executive actions to those explicitly allowed by law.
- Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. Union of India
Facts: Sun Pharmaceuticals challenged an administrative order issued by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI), which placed additional requirements for the manufacturing and sale of certain pharmaceutical products that were not prescribed by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Sun Pharmaceuticals argued that these additional requirements were burdensome and that the DCGI was exceeding its regulatory powers by issuing such orders without legislative approval.
Court’s Decision: The Gujarat High Court struck down the administrative order, ruling that it was ultra vires the statute. The court emphasized that administrative agencies cannot impose additional obligations or restrictions that are not found in the enabling legislation. The court
held that any such modifications or new requirements must come through amendments to the law, not through executive orders.
- Sony Music Entertainment v. Triller Inc.
Facts: Sony Music Entertainment sued Triller Inc., a social media platform, for allowing users to upload and use Sony’s copyrighted music in short videos without obtaining the necessary licenses. Sony argued that the widespread use of its music on Triller’s platform violated its performance and reproduction rights.
Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sony Music, holding that the use of copyrighted music on Triller’s platform without proper licensing constituted infringement. The court emphasized that fair use exemptions must be interpreted narrowly, particularly in cases where copyrighted works are used for commercial purposes. Triller was ordered to obtain licenses for the music used on its platform or face penalties.
- The Football Players’ Association of India v. All India Football Federation
Facts: The Football Players’ Association of India (FPAI) challenged a public notice issued by the All India Football Federation (AIFF), which imposed new registration requirements on football players, including additional fees and compliance measures. FPAI argued that the public notice was unlawful and placed an undue burden on players, exceeding the statutory framework set out by the AIFF.
Court’s Decision: The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the FPAI, stating that public notices or circulars cannot expand statutory provisions or impose new obligations without legislative approval. The court held that public notices must be purely informative and cannot create new legal obligations that contradict or add to existing statutory provisions.
Reference(s):
1 Shanti Fragrances v. Union of India [(2022) SCC OnLine Del 1542]
2 Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India [(2023) 2 SCC 1]
3 Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd. [(2022) SCC OnLine Bom 1002] 4 Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka [(2023) SCC OnLine Kar 79]
5 Sun Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [(2022) SCC OnLine Guj 502]
6 Sony Music Entertainment v. Triller Inc. [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 512]
7 The Football Players’ Association of India v. All India Football Federation [(2023) SCC OnLine Del 473]
