Navigating the Procedures of the Copyright Board: Ensuring Fairness in Copyright Dispute Resolution

When a filmmaker claims their script was stolen, or a musician disputes the royalties owed to them, where does the matter go? In India, copyright disputes of this nature have traditionally landed before the Copyright Board – a specialized quasi-judicial body established under the Copyright Act, 1957. But resolving such disputes fairly requires more than just legal knowledge. It demands a clear, structured procedure – one that ensures every party gets a genuine hearing, that decision-makers are free from bias, and that the Board has enough authority to compel evidence and enforce its process. That is exactly what Section 12 of the Copyright Act sets out to achieve.

The Copyright Board’s procedural autonomy 🔗

One of the defining features of the Copyright Board is that it is not rigidly bound by external procedural codes when managing its own hearings. Section 12(1) of the Copyright Act gives the Board the authority to regulate its own procedure, including fixing the time and place of its sittings. This procedural flexibility is intentional – it allows the Board to adapt its process to the nature of the dispute before it, without the procedural rigidity that sometimes slows down regular civil courts.

That said, this autonomy is not unlimited. The Act imposes an important geographic constraint: the Board must ordinarily hear any proceeding within the zone where the person who instituted the proceeding actually resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain at the time of filing. The term “zone” here refers to the zones specified under Section 15 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. This provision exists to reduce the burden on parties – particularly individual creators and smaller businesses – who would otherwise have to travel across the country to pursue their claims.

How the Board is constituted for hearings 🔗

The Copyright Board does not always sit as a full body to hear every case. Section 12(2) empowers the Chairman to constitute Benches from among the Board’s members to exercise and discharge the Board’s powers and functions. This makes the process more efficient, allowing multiple matters to proceed simultaneously without waiting for the entire Board to assemble.

However, the Chairman retains oversight over the significance of each matter. If the Chairman is of the opinion that a particular case is of sufficient importance, he can refer it to a special Bench of five members to ensure it receives the appropriate level of attention. This tiered structure – ordinary Benches for routine matters and enlarged Benches for complex or significant cases – reflects a practical approach to managing the Board’s workload without compromising on thoroughness.

Decision-making: the majority opinion rule 🔗

When members of a Bench disagree on a matter, Section 12(3) provides a clear resolution mechanism: the opinion of the majority shall prevail. This is the standard democratic principle applied to collegiate decision-making bodies. But the Act also addresses a trickier situation – what happens when there is no majority, i.e., when opinions are evenly split? In that case, the opinion of the Chairman prevails. This tiebreaker provision ensures that proceedings are never left in a state of deadlock, and that every case before the Board reaches a definitive conclusion.

Additionally, Section 12(4) allows the Chairman to authorise individual members to exercise certain powers – specifically those granted under Section 74 of the Act – so that the Board can delegate responsibility without losing accountability. Any order or act done under such authorisation carries the same legal weight as if it had been done by the full Board.

Impartiality: the rule against personal interest 🔗

Perhaps the most foundational procedural safeguard in Section 12 is the disqualification rule. Section 12(5) categorically states that no member of the Copyright Board shall take part in any proceeding in respect of any matter in which he has a personal interest. This rule directly embodies the principle of nemo judex in causa sua – no one should be a judge in their own cause.

In practice, this means that if a Board member holds a copyright, has a financial stake in a licensing agreement being disputed, or has any other direct or indirect personal interest in the outcome of a case, that member is barred from participating in that proceeding. This provision is non-negotiable. It exists to preserve public confidence in the Board’s impartiality and to ensure that the rights of both creators and users are adjudicated without any conflict of interest clouding the process.

Proceedings unaffected by vacancies or defects 🔗

A practical concern in any multi-member body is what happens when there are unfilled positions or technical defects in the Board’s constitution – say, a member’s appointment is challenged or a seat remains vacant. Section 12(6) addresses this directly: no act done or proceeding taken by the Copyright Board can be questioned merely on the ground of a vacancy or defect in the constitution of the Board. This provision prevents parties from using procedural technicalities to invalidate otherwise valid decisions, and ensures continuity of the Board’s functioning even during transitional periods.

Civil court powers: the procedural backbone 🔗

The Copyright Board’s ability to enforce its process is significantly strengthened by the civil court powers granted to it. Section 74 of the Copyright Act expressly grants the Board – and the Registrar of Copyrights – certain powers of a civil court. These include:

• Summoning and enforcing attendance of any person and examining them on oath
• Requiring discovery and production of documents relevant to the dispute
• Receiving evidence on affidavit, offering flexibility in how testimony is recorded
• Issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and documents
• Requisitioning public records or copies thereof from any court or public office

These powers are essential for the Board to function as a credible adjudicatory body. A tribunal that cannot compel attendance or access documentary evidence would be toothless. By equipping the Board with these civil court tools, the law ensures that parties cannot frustrate proceedings by withholding evidence or refusing to appear.

The Board as a civil court: judicial status of proceedings 🔗

Going beyond procedural powers, Section 12(7) gives the Copyright Board an important legal status: it is deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of Sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. More significantly, all proceedings before the Board are deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

What does this mean in concrete terms? Section 193 of the IPC deals with punishment for giving false evidence, and Section 228 deals with intentional insult or interruption to public servants sitting in judicial proceedings. By classifying the Board’s proceedings as judicial in nature, the law ensures that witnesses and parties are under a legal obligation to be truthful, and that any obstruction or perjury before the Board carries the same criminal consequences as it would in a regular court. This significantly raises the stakes for misconduct in Board proceedings, reinforcing the integrity of the entire dispute resolution process.

Decrees and enforcement of orders 🔗

The judicial character of the Board’s proceedings extends to enforcement as well. Under Section 75 of the Copyright Act, any order for the payment of money passed by the Registrar of Copyrights or the Copyright Board is executable as a decree of a civil court. This means that if the Board orders a party to pay royalties or compensation and that party refuses to comply, the order can be enforced through the machinery of civil court execution – including attachment of property and other coercive measures. This makes the Board’s monetary orders genuinely enforceable, not merely advisory.

The 2017 transition: from Copyright Board to Appellate Board 🔗

It is worth noting a significant structural change that affects the Copyright Board’s current status. The Finance Act, 2017 merged the Copyright Board into the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which was itself established under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. From May 2017 onward, the IPAB took over the functions and jurisdiction previously exercised by the Copyright Board. The IPAB continued under this framework until it was abolished in 2021, after which its functions were redistributed to various High Courts. Understanding these procedural provisions under Section 12 therefore remains relevant both historically and as a foundation for understanding how copyright dispute resolution is currently structured in India.

What do you think? Given that the Copyright Board’s proceedings are treated as judicial in nature – with perjury consequences for false evidence – do you think this level of legal seriousness is necessary for copyright disputes, or does it risk making the process too intimidating for individual creators with limited legal resources? And considering the rule that no member can participate in a matter where they have a personal interest, how should “personal interest” be defined – should indirect financial interests, such as holding shares in a media company involved in a dispute, also qualify as a disqualifying interest?

References

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1657731/
2. https://copyright.gov.in/
3. https://www.commonlii.org/in/legis/cen/num_act/ca1957133/
4. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15356/1/the_copyright_act,_1957.pdf
5. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-12096-the-copyright-appellate-board-of-india.html
6. https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/legislation/details/15814