The Expansive Powers of the Copyright Board: Adjudicating India’s Copyright Disputes

When a songwriter disputes the royalty rate offered by a broadcaster, or a publisher withholds a book from the public, or someone wants to publish the unpublished manuscript of a deceased Indian author – where does one turn? Under India’s Copyright Act, 1957, these disputes fall squarely within the jurisdiction of the Copyright Board – a specialized quasi-judicial body vested with sweeping powers to regulate, adjudicate, and resolve the full spectrum of copyright-related conflicts. Understanding what the Board can actually do is essential for anyone engaging with intellectual property law in India.

What is the Copyright Board? 🔗

The Copyright Board was established under Section 11 of the Copyright Act, 1957 as a dedicated adjudicatory forum for copyright matters. Unlike a regular civil court, it brought domain-specific expertise to disputes involving creative works – literary, musical, artistic, dramatic, and cinematographic. The Board functioned as a quasi-judicial tribunal with powers that significantly overlapped with those of a civil court, though it remained a body separate from the ordinary judiciary.

It is worth noting a critical legislative development: the Finance Act of 2017 dissolved the Copyright Board, transferring its functions to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The IPAB itself was subsequently abolished in 2021, and its jurisdiction was moved to the Commercial Courts (a division of the High Courts). However, the framework of powers and functions that the Copyright Board exercised – primarily codified under Section 12 of the Act – remains foundational to understanding how copyright disputes are adjudicated in India, and continues to be examined in legal curricula and practice.

Section 12: the procedural foundation 🔗

Section 12 of the Copyright Act is the primary provision governing the Copyright Board’s powers and procedure. It gave the Board broad authority to regulate its own functioning, and its provisions covered both procedural mechanics and substantive decision-making powers.

Power to regulate its own procedure 🔗

Under Section 12(1), the Copyright Board had the power to regulate its own procedure, including fixing the places and times of its sittings. The key operational rule was that the Board was ordinarily required to hear proceedings within the zone in which the person instituting the proceeding actually and voluntarily resided or carried on business – a zone being as specified under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. This geographic sensitivity ensured that litigants were not burdened with traveling across the country to have their disputes heard.

Bench constitution and majority decisions 🔗

The Board exercised its powers and functions through Benches constituted by its Chairman. Each Bench was required to consist of not less than three members. If the Chairman considered a matter particularly significant, he could refer it to a special Bench of five members. On questions where members disagreed, the opinion of the majority prevailed; where no majority emerged, the Chairman’s opinion was decisive. Individual members could also be authorised to exercise powers under Section 74 of the Act, and their orders were treated as the Board’s own.

Conflict of interest and institutional continuity 🔗

No member of the Board could participate in proceedings in which he or she had a personal interest – a standard safeguard for impartiality. Importantly, no act or proceeding of the Board could be questioned merely on the ground of a vacancy or defect in the Board’s constitution. This provision ensured that the Board’s functioning remained uninterrupted and its decisions remained legally valid even through administrative transitions.

Deemed civil court status and judicial proceedings 🔗

One of the most significant legal positions of the Copyright Board was its deemed civil court status. Under Section 12(7) of the Copyright Act, the Board was deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of Sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Additionally, all proceedings before the Board were treated as judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

This classification had serious practical implications. Section 193 of the IPC makes giving false evidence before a judicial proceeding a criminal offence. Section 228 penalises intentional insult or interruption to a judicial proceeding. By bringing Board proceedings within these provisions, the law ensured that parties and witnesses before the Board were under the same legal obligations of truthfulness and decorum as they would be before any court.

Civil court powers: summoning, evidence, and records 🔗

In exercise of its civil court powers, the Copyright Board (and the Registrar of Copyrights) could exercise authority over the following procedural matters:

Summoning and enforcing attendance: The Board could summon any person and enforce their attendance for examination on oath. This jurisdiction extended across the whole of India, which meant the Board’s reach was not limited to a particular state or region.

Discovery and production of documents: The Board had the power to require any party to disclose and produce documents relevant to the proceedings – a power directly mirroring that of civil courts under the Code of Civil Procedure.

Evidence on affidavits: Rather than requiring all evidence to be led through live witness examination, the Board could receive evidence on affidavit, making the process more efficient for factual matters that were not seriously disputed.

Commissions for examination of witnesses: Where a witness could not appear before the Board directly, the Board could issue commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents – again a civil court power adapted for the Board’s specialist context.

Requisitioning public records: The Board could requisition any public record or a copy thereof from any court or office. This was particularly useful in disputes involving registered copyrights, where records maintained by the Copyright Office were central to the case.

These procedural powers gave the Board genuine investigative and evidentiary authority – not merely the power to hear arguments, but to compel disclosure and test the veracity of claims.

Substantive powers: what the Board could decide 🔗

Beyond procedure, the Copyright Board exercised an extensive range of substantive jurisdiction over copyright disputes. These are the decisions it was empowered to actually make.

Settlement of publication and term disputes 🔗

Under Section 6 of the Act, if a question arose as to whether copies of a literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work had been issued to the public in sufficient numbers, or whether the term of copyright in another country was shorter than that provided under the Indian Act, such questions were to be referred to the Copyright Board. The Board’s decision on these matters was final.

Compulsory licensing 🔗

The Copyright Board’s licensing powers were among its most economically consequential functions. Compulsory licensing refers to statutory permission granted for the use of copyrighted works without the copyright owner’s consent, in circumstances defined by law. The Board’s compulsory licensing jurisdiction covered several distinct situations:

Works withheld from the public (Section 31): If a copyright owner refused to republish or allow republication of a work, or refused to allow its public performance or broadcast on reasonable terms, any person could apply to the Board for a compulsory licence. The Board would, after inquiry, direct the Registrar of Copyrights to grant the licence on appropriate terms, including payment of royalty.

Unpublished Indian works (Section 31A): Where an Indian author had died, was unknown, or could not be traced, and their work remained unpublished or unavailable, any person could apply for a licence to publish or communicate the work to the public. The Board would fix the terms, including the royalty, which would be deposited in the public account of India for the rightful owner to claim.

Works for persons with disabilities (Section 31B): Any person working for the benefit of persons with disabilities could apply for a compulsory licence to publish a copyrighted work in an accessible format. The Board was required to dispose of such applications within two months of receipt, reflecting the policy priority of accessible content.

Statutory licensing for broadcasting 🔗

Section 31D introduced a statutory licence regime for broadcasters. Broadcasting organisations could broadcast literary, musical works, and sound recordings by giving prior notice and paying royalties at rates fixed by the Copyright Board. This replaced the earlier system of purely voluntary licensing, under which copyright societies and owners had been able to impose unreasonable terms on broadcasters. By giving the Board authority to set rates, the law created a structured market for broadcast licensing.

Licence to publish translations 🔗

Under Section 32 of the Act, the Board could grant a compulsory licence to produce and publish a translation of a literary or dramatic work in any language, provided seven years had elapsed from the first publication of the work. This provision balanced the rights of authors with the public interest in linguistic accessibility – particularly important in a multilingual country like India.

Disputes over copyright assignment 🔗

Section 19A gave the Board jurisdiction over disputes between assignors and assignees of copyright. If an assignee failed to adequately exercise the rights assigned, and this failure was not attributable to any act or omission of the assignor, the Board – on receiving a complaint from the assignor – could, after inquiry, revoke the assignment. This was a meaningful protection for authors and creators who had assigned their rights but saw them remain unexploited.

Royalty rate determination 🔗

Fixing fair royalty rates was a central function of the Copyright Board. This arose in multiple contexts: compulsory licensing scenarios, statutory broadcasting licences, cover version sound recordings under Section 31C, and disputes over performing rights society fees. The Board also had power to fix the resale share right in original copies of paintings, sculptures, drawings, and original manuscripts of literary, dramatic, or musical works – ensuring that creators could share in the secondary market value of their works.

Rectification of the Register of Copyrights 🔗

The Board could order rectification of the Register of Copyrights on the application of the Registrar of Copyrights or any aggrieved person. This was the mechanism for correcting errors, omissions, or fraudulent entries in the official register – an important housekeeping function that maintained the integrity of the copyright registration system.

Appeals from the Board’s orders 🔗

The Board’s decisions were not immune from challenge. Appeals against orders passed by the Copyright Board – other than those under Section 6 – lay to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellant resided or carried on business. This judicial oversight ensured that the Board’s quasi-judicial character did not place it beyond the reach of constitutional review. The High Court has also clarified that the Board possessed the power to review its own decisions in order to correct procedural infirmities, even absent an express statutory provision.

Significance of the Board’s design 🔗

The Copyright Board’s architecture – civil court powers within a specialist quasi-judicial body, with judicial proceedings status and structured appellate review – reflected a deliberate legislative choice. Copyright disputes require technical understanding of creative industries, licensing markets, and the economics of creative works. By vesting these powers in a dedicated body rather than generalist civil courts, the law aimed to produce more informed, consistent, and efficient outcomes for all stakeholders: creators, publishers, broadcasters, and the public.

The Copyright Board served as a quasi-judicial tribunal empowered to rectify errors in the Register of Copyrights, grant compulsory licences, and fix royalty rates – functions that no ordinary civil court was structurally positioned to perform with the same specialist depth. Even after the Board’s functions were transferred to the IPAB and subsequently to the Commercial Courts, the statutory framework of powers that Section 12 established continues to define how copyright adjudication works in India.

What do you think? Given that copyright disputes today often involve digital platforms, streaming algorithms, and AI-generated content, should India consider establishing a new dedicated copyright tribunal with updated technological expertise? And do you think the current arrangement – with copyright matters handled by Commercial Courts – adequately serves the specialized nature of intellectual property adjudication?

References

1. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15356/1/the_copyright_act,_1957.pdf
2. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-12096-the-copyright-appellate-board-of-india.html
3. https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/copyright-protection-india-overview-and-recent-developments-2022-03-02_en
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1136195/
5. https://www.parkerip.com/blog/understanding-copyright-licensing-in-indian-copyright-law/
6. https://www.copyright.gov.in/documents/handbook.html
7. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ef8e848b-753c-4eb3-a9e6-198564494f23