Case Summary: CIVIC CHANDRAN & OTHERS. v. C. AMMINI AMMA & OTHERS (1996)

• Case Title: Civic Chandran & Others v. C. Ammini Amma & Others.  
• Citation: C.M.A No. 329/1995.  
• Court: Kerala High Court. 
• Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.V Ramakrishnan.  
• Date of Judgement: February 27, 1996.  
• Key Provisions: The Copyright Act, 1957, Section 14, 51, 52 (1)(a)(ii).  

FACTS OF THE CASE  

The case concerns an appeal challenging the interlocutory injunction issued by the Additional  District Judge-I, Mavelikkara, restraining the staging of a counter drama titled “Ningal Are  Communistakki” (Whom Did You Make a Communist?) written by Mr. Civic Chandran in  1995, on the ground that it is a prima facie infringement of copyright of the famous drama  “Ningal Enne Communistakki” (You Made Me a Communist) authored by the late Thoppil  Bhasi in 1952, whose legal representatives are the plaintiffs in the suit and the respondents in  the appeal. The defendants alleged that the counter drama copied substantial portions of the  original drama without consent, thereby violating the Copyright Act and sought injunctions  against staging and publication of the counter drama along with the damages. The plaintiffs  opposed the injunction asserting that the counter drama was a legitimate critical work  constituting fair dealing under the Copyright Act.  

ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE 

• Whether the interlocutory injunction restraining the staging of the counter drama is  legally sustainable under the facts and circumstances of the case. 
• Whether the staging and publication of the counter-drama constituted a prima facie  infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957.  
• Whether the counter-drama was protected under the statutory exception of “fair  dealing” under Section 52(1)(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES  

Appellant’s Argument  

• The appellants asserted that the counter-drama is a new literary innovation using the  same theme and characters to provide criticism and critical analysis of the original  drama.  
• The copying of the portions from the original drama constitutes “fair dealing” for the  purpose of criticism under the Copyright Act.  
• The appellants have invested significant time, effort, and money in preparation for  staging the counter drama and delaying it would cause irreparable loss. 
• They also contended that there was a delay by the plaintiff’s in filing the suit after  publication, indicating lack of bona fides. 
• Even if injury is caused to the plaintiffs, it can be compensated by damages which holds  the injunction to be unnecessary. [1] 

Respondents Arguments  

•  The respondents argued that the counter drama copies substantial portions of the  original drama and uses the same characters and dialogues, which is not “fair dealing” but copyright infringement.  
• The injunctions were rightly granted to preserve the plaintiff’s copyright and prevent  irreparable injury.  
• There is an attempt to denigrate or tarnish the fair name and repute of the author and the balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo by restraining the staging  of the counter drama until trial.  
• They also held that the court should not disturb the lower court’s discretion unless the  order is illegal or perverse. [2] 

JUDGEMENT  

The High Court of Kerala delivered a landmark judgement that significantly broadened the  interpretation of “Fair Dealing” in India. The Court was of the view that the learned Judge was  not justified in granting an injunction in the facts and circumstances of the case, emphasizing  that copyright is not an absolute right but one balanced against the public’s right to information and critique. It was quoted from the decision of Supreme Court in R.G Anand v. Delux Films  (1978) 4 SCC 118: A.I.R 1978 S.C 1613 – 

“One of the surest and safest test to determine where or not there has been violation of  copyright is to see if the reader, spectator, or the viewer after having read or seen both the work  is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears  to be copy of the original.” 

The counter drama was published as early as in January 1995 and the suit was only instituted  in July 1995 which defeats the argument of the plaintiff in being aggrieved by the printing and  publishing of the counter drama due to lack of immediate action. The Court was of the view  that the attempt was not to reproduce either a scene or part of the quotation for conveying the  same idea for a rival purpose and the comment made at the end of the reproduction seems not  to be one used only as a cover to mask copying. In fact, such discussion used is to serve  criticism of the theme, ideology, and philosophy of the author and that the drama has failed to  achieve the real object intended to be achieved by writing the same. Even if any monetary loss  is likely to be caused to the plaintiffs on proving the same, the plaintiffs could be compensated  by directing the defendants to pay such damages which the court deems fit from the case.  Therefore, the injunction application is dismissed and the order passed by the Court I.A No.  395/1995 is set aside. [3] 

RATIO DECIDENDI  

The court contended that one of the relevant considerations laid down in Habbard v. Vosper 1972 (2) W.L.R 389 to be satisfied while granting injunction, namely, that there is likely to be  a competition between the two works which is not satisfied in this case. Moreover, the defence of “fair dealing” for the purpose of criticism and review under Section 52(1)(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act 1957 is not precluded by the fact that a substantial part of the original work has  been copied, provided that the copying was necessary for the purpose of the critique. [4]

FINAL DECISION  

The court finally held that the appeal is allowed, the interlocutory injunction restraining the  staging of the counter drama is set aside and the application for injunction is dismissed. The  parties will bear their respective costs.  

IMPLICATIONS  

The direct effect of this decision is that the defendants are permitted to stage the counter drama  pending trial. The court emphasised the importance of balancing copyright protection with the  freedom of expression, particularly in works involving criticism and review. No new precedent  altering copyright law was established; rather, the court applied existing principles to the facts  underscoring the statutory defence of fair dealing. The trial of the suit is to be expedited and  the decision does not prejudice the final adjudication on merits.[5]

CONCLUSION  

The decision in Civic Chandran & Others v. Ammini Amma & Others stands to be a significant  judicial affirmation of the doctrine of fair dealing under Indian Copyright law. The substantial  copying in itself did not constitute infringement when such use is genuinely necessary to  critique the original work. Through the careful application of statutory provisions under  Sections 51 and 52(1)(a)(ii) of the Copyright Act 1957 and reliance on the established  precedents, the judgement reinforced a balanced approach that prevents copyright from being  used as a tool to stifle commentaries and criticism.  

REFERENCES

[1] Casemine, “Civic Chandran & Others v. C. Ammini Amma & Others” https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e66b08607dba6b534374a3. Last accessed on 30th December 2025.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Civic Chandran & Others v. C. Ammini Amma & Others. C.M.A No. 329/1995. 

[4] Ibid.

[5] Casemine, “Civic Chandran & Others v. C. Ammini Amma & Others” – https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e66b08607dba6b534374a3. Last accessed on 30th December 2025.