CASE SUMMARY: EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. V. D.B.MADAK & ANR.

Leave a Comment / Case Summaries / By

Published On: January 26th 2026

Authored By: Ch. Susmitha
KLEF College of Law
  • Title: EASTERN BOOK COMPANY & ORS. v. D.B.MADAK & ANR.
  • Citation: (2008) 1 SCC 1
  • Court: Supreme Court of India
  • Date of Judgment: December 12, 2007
  • Judges: B.N. Agrawal & P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
  • Petitioners: Eastern Book Company (EBC) and EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., publishers of the Supreme Court Cases (SCC) law report.
  • Respondents: Spectrum Business Support Ltd. and Regent Datatech Pvt. Ltd., who published legal software products Grand Jurix and The Laws.

Introduction

The judgment offered a thoughtful examination of what constitutes originality and creativity under the Copyright Act, 1957. It emphasized that copyright protection is rooted in the principle of fairness—granting authors the right to prevent unauthorized use of their work. The law seeks to strike a balance between safeguarding the creator’s rights and preserving the public domain. Originality plays a pivotal role in this balance, serving as a bridge between the author’s entitlement to protection and the public’s interest in accessing uncopyrighted material. The Court underscored that originality is not merely a technical requirement but a fundamental criterion that ensures both the creator’s contribution and the integrity of the public domain are respected.

Background Facts

  1. Eastern Book Company (EBC) is a leading publisher in the legal domain, best known for its journal Supreme Court Cases (SCC), which features both reportable and non-reportable judgments, brief orders, and procedural guidelines issued by the Supreme Court.
  2. Since its launch of SCC in 1969, EBC has expanded its offerings with SCC Online, a digital legal research platform available on CD-ROM. This tool includes:
    • Judgments that are both reportable and non-reportable.
    • Brief orders, procedural directions, and records of court proceedings.
  3. EBC receives unedited judgments directly from the Supreme Court Registrar and enhances them by:
    • Incorporating headnotes, footnotes, and detailed annotations.
    • Applying formatting, paragraph numbering, and cross-referencing.
    • Structuring the content to be more accessible and practical for legal professionals.

Alleged Infringement

  • Around 2001, the respondents (D.B. Modak & others) launched software products like Grand Jurix and The Laws, which included Supreme Court judgments.
  • EBC alleged that the respondents copied their edited judgments, including paragraph structures and headnotes, without permission.
  • EBC filed suits for copyright infringement, moral rights violation, unfair competition, and damages.

Legal provisions involved 

  • Section 13 of the Copyright Act,1957.
  • Section 14 of the Copyright Act,1957.
  • Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act,1957.

Legal Action Initiated

EBC filed two suits in the Delhi High Court:

  • Suit Nos. 624/2000 and 758/2000
  • Sought permanent injunction, damages, and recognition of copyright.

Stage 1: Trial Court – Single Judge, Delhi High Court

  • EBC filed two suits (Suit Nos. 624/2000 and 758/2000) seeking:
    • Permanent injunction
    • Copyright protection for editorial content
    • Damages for infringement
  • Interim injunction granted initially to restrain the respondents from distributing their software (D-ROMs).
  • Respondents filed an application to vacate the injunction (To vacate an injunction means: The court withdraws or nullifies the injunction. The party who was previously restrained is now free to act as they wish (unless another order is passed).
  • The Single Judge allowed the vacation, stating:
  1. Supreme Court judgments are public domain.
  2. EBC’s editorial work may not meet the threshold of originality for full copyright protection.

Stage 2: Division Bench – Delhi High Court

  • EBC appealed the Single Judge’s decision that is the vacation of the injunction.
  • The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding:
  1. The respondents’ use of judgments did not amount to infringement.
  2. EBC’s editorial inputs were not sufficiently original to warrant full protection.
  3. The headnotes were acknowledged as original, but the rest of the formatting and paragraphing were not protected.

ISSUES BEFORE SUPREME COURT:

  1. Whether the copy-edited judgments published by Eastern Book Company—consisting of paragraph numbering, internal cross-referencing, formatting, and limited editorial input qualify as original literary works protected under Section 13 of the Copyright Act?
  2. Whether copyright can be claimed over entire judicial judgments that are in the public domain simply by adding editorial enhancements and formatting touches?
  3. Whether the standard of originality required under the Indian Copyright Act for a derivative literary work?

Arguments on behalf of Petitioners: Eastern Book Company (EBC)

  1. Originality of Editorial Work: EBC argued that while Supreme Court judgments are public domain, their edited versions—featuring headnotes, footnotes, paragraphing, formatting, and cross-referencing—are original literary works protected under copyright law.
  2. Skill and Judgment: The editorial process involved significant intellectual effort, legal expertise, and creativity, especially in summarizing judgments and identifying key legal principles.
  3. Investment of Resources: EBC emphasized the substantial labor, skill, and capital invested in producing the Supreme Court Cases (SCC) reports, making them more accessible and valuable to legal professionals.
  4. Infringement Claim: The respondents’ software products allegedly reproduced EBC’s edited judgments verbatim, including paragraph numbering and formatting, which constituted copyright infringement.

Arguments on behalf of Respondents: Spectrum Business Support Ltd. & Regent Datatech Pvt. Ltd.

  1. Public Domain Defense: The respondents contended that Supreme Court judgments are government works and thus not subject to copyright under Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act.
  2. Lack of Originality: They argued that EBC’s editorial changes lacked the requisite originality and creativity to qualify for copyright protection, as they were merely mechanical edits.
  3. Fair Use of Judgments: The respondents maintained that their use of judgments was lawful and did not extend to copying headnotes or other clearly original content.
  4. No Exclusive Rights Over Formatting: They challenged the notion that paragraphing or formatting could be copyrighted, asserting that such structural changes do not meet the threshold of originality.

Stage 3: Supreme Court of India

    • EBC appealed by special leave.
    • The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment on 12 December 2007.

Key findings:

  • Raw judgments are public domain and not copyrightable. Raw judgments of the Supreme Court are government works under Section 2(k) and not copyrightable under Section 52(q)(iv).
      • Editorial inputs like headnotes, paragraph numbering, and formatting involve skill and creativity and are copyright protected. Editorial enhancements like headnotes, paragraph numbering, and formatting are derivative works and can be protected if they show creativity. 
      • The court emphasized that mere labour isn’t enough there  must be skill, judgment and creativity in the editorial process.
  • India adopts the “modicum of creativity” standard—not just “sweat of the brow”. The Court rejected the “sweat of the brow” doctrine (mere effort ≠ copyright). Instead, it adopted the “modicum of creativity” standard, requiring some intellectual input or A unique Indian test balancing both effort and creativity.

Court’s Observations

  • EBC’s headnotes and summaries involved significant intellectual effort and were clearly original
  • Paragraph numbering and formatting, while helpful, were not sufficiently creative to warrant protection.
  • The respondents’ software products copied the edited judgments, including paragraph structures, which the Court found problematic.
  • The Court clarified that copyright does not extend to facts or public records, but value-added editorial content can be protected.

Final Verdict:

  • EBC’s were granted copyright protection.
  1. Headnotes, editorial notes, footnotes. 
  2. Paragraph numbering and internal referencing.
  3. Judge opinion indicators (“concurring”, “dissenting”, etc.).
  • Raw judgments remained in the public domain. 
  • Respondents were restrained from copying EBC’s editorial content. EBC’s editorial content is protected
  • The Court set a new benchmark for originality in Indian copyright law.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi the legal principle or rule upon which the decision is based in this landmark case is:

  • “For a work to qualify for copyright protection under the Indian Copyright Act, it must possess a minimum degree of creativity and not merely be the result of labor, skill, or effort.”
  • This principle was articulated by the Supreme Court when it rejected the older “sweat of the brow” doctrine (which granted copyright based on effort alone) and adopted the “modicum of creativity” standard, aligning Indian law with global norms like those in the U.S. and Canada.

Impact of the Judgment

  • Change in India’s copyright standard from effort-based to creativity-based.
  • Strengthened protection for legal publishers and content creators.
  • Clarified boundaries between public domain content and editorial enhancements.

The Court concluded that:

“The headnotes, editorial notes, and summaries prepared by Eastern Book Company involve sufficient intellectual effort and creativity to be protected under copyright law.”

Conclusion 

The case established a refined benchmark for determining originality in copyright law by striking a balance between the “sweat of the brow” doctrine and the degree of creativity necessary for a work to qualify for protection. While the Canadian ruling in CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada endorsed a minimal threshold based largely on effort, and patent law demands complete novelty, the Indian Supreme Court positioned originality somewhere in between. It held that a derivative work must go beyond mere replication of the source and exhibit at least a modest level of creativity more than just labor and financial investment regardless of its literary quality. Ultimately, the Court emphasized that copyright eligibility hinges on the author’s application of skill and judgment, rather than pure creativity or mechanical effort.

REFERENCES:

  1. Eastern book company and others  v. D.b. Modak and another (2008) 1 supreme court cases, (Last visited Sep. 26, 2025, 10:02 PM), https://www.ebc-india.com/downloads/ebc_v_modak.pdf
  2. Saksham Gadia, Eastern Book Cooperation v. D.B. Modak, 2008 [1], ARGUMENTS ,( Last visited Sep 26, 2025, 10:22 PM), https://lawessential.com/ip-case-laws/f/eastern-book-cooperation-v-db-modak-2008-1
  3. Indian Kanoon, , Eastern Book Cooperation v. D.B. Modak, Judgment and Ratio decidendi,(Last visited Sep. 27, 2025, 9:30 AM), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1062099/
  4. Avishikta Biswas, Landmark Cases of Intellectual Property Rights, FACTS,(Last visited Sep. 27, 2025, 10:00 AM) https://www.legalbites.in/category-intellectual-property-rights
  5. Anushka Bharwan, Eastern Book Company and Ors. vs D.B. Modak and Ors, INRODUCTION, (Last Visited Sep. 27, 2025, 4:20 PM), https://lawtimesjournal.in/eastern-book-company-and-ors-vs-d-b-modak-and-ors/.