Exploring the Nationwide Jurisdiction of India’s Copyright Board

India is a land of enormous creative output – from classical literature and regional cinema to software and music. Protecting this creative wealth requires not just strong laws, but an accessible, geographically spread-out system that can serve creators regardless of where they live or work. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, the Copyright Board of India was designed with exactly this in mind – a body with nationwide jurisdiction, structured to bring copyright dispute resolution closer to the doorstep of every creator in the country.

What is the Copyright Board and what does it do? 🔗

The Copyright Board was established under Section 11 of the Copyright Act, 1957 as a quasi-judicial body with the power to adjudicate a range of copyright-related disputes. Its mandate was broad: it handled matters relating to copyright registration disputes, assignment of copyright, grant of licences for works withheld from the public, licences for unpublished Indian works, and permissions related to translation and reproduction for educational purposes. All proceedings before the Board were deemed judicial proceedings – meaning the Board functioned effectively as a civil court for the purposes of Sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

As the Copyright Office of India notes, the jurisdiction of the Copyright Board extended to the whole of India – it was not confined to any one city or High Court jurisdiction. This nationwide reach was one of its defining features and a critical part of how it was intended to operate.

The jurisdictional framework: how it spans the entire country 🔗

The nationwide jurisdiction of the Copyright Board was not merely symbolic. It was operationalised through a clear procedural rule embedded in Section 12 of the Copyright Act. Under this provision, the Board had the authority to regulate its own procedure, including fixing the places and times of its sittings across the country. The key principle was straightforward: a proceeding would ordinarily be heard within the zone where the person instituting the proceeding – at the time of filing – actually and voluntarily resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain.

This was a deliberate design choice to reduce the burden on creators. Instead of requiring a filmmaker in Chennai or a writer in Bhopal to travel all the way to Delhi to file a copyright grievance, the law ensured that proceedings would be held in the region most convenient to the complainant. The term “zone” used in this provision directly refers to the zones specified under Section 15 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.

The five zones under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 🔗

The States Reorganisation Act, 1956 reorganised India’s states primarily along linguistic lines and, under Section 15, established five Zonal Councils for different parts of the country. These five zones – Northern, Central, Eastern, Western, and Southern – form the geographical backbone of the Copyright Board’s decentralised approach to hearings.

Here is how each zone is composed under the law:

• Northern Zone: Comprises Haryana, Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Jammu & Kashmir, and the Union Territories of Delhi and Chandigarh.
• Central Zone: Comprises Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.
• Eastern Zone: Comprises Bihar, West Bengal, Odisha, and Sikkim.
• Western Zone: Comprises Goa, Gujarat, and Maharashtra, along with the Union Territories of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu.
• Southern Zone: Comprises Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Kerala, along with the Union Territory of Puducherry.

By anchoring the Copyright Board’s jurisdictional model to these pre-existing administrative zones, the law avoided creating a parallel territorial structure from scratch. It leveraged a well-established framework to make copyright dispute resolution spatially accessible.

How the Board conducted hearings: benches and their composition 🔗

The Copyright Board did not function as a single monolithic body sitting permanently in one location. Under Section 12(2) of the Copyright Act, the Chairman could constitute Benches from among the Board’s members, with each Bench comprising no fewer than three members. For matters of significant importance, the Chairman had the discretion to refer a case to a special Bench of five members. This bench-based system allowed the Board to simultaneously handle proceedings across different zones without requiring the entire membership to be present at every hearing.

Where members of a Bench disagreed on a question before them, the opinion of the majority would prevail. If no majority could be formed, the Chairman’s opinion would be the deciding vote. This clear decision-making hierarchy ensured that proceedings could reach a definitive conclusion even in contentious matters.

Why decentralised jurisdiction matters for creators 🔗

Copyright disputes in India do not arise only in metropolitan centres. A folk musician in Jharkhand, a textbook author in Coimbatore, or a software developer in Indore may all face infringement of their intellectual property. Without a decentralised system, these creators would face a compounded burden – not only the legal challenge itself, but also the financial and logistical costs of approaching a tribunal potentially hundreds of kilometres away.

The zonal approach directly addresses this. By requiring that hearings ordinarily take place within the zone where the petitioner lives or works, the law removes geography as a barrier to justice. This matters particularly for independent creators and smaller rights holders who may lack the resources that large media companies or publishing houses command. As noted by IP practitioners, the Board was designed as an alternative forum to the regular civil courts – one that combined accessibility with subject-matter expertise.

The role of IP attorneys in navigating the Board’s jurisdiction 🔗

Understanding which zone applies, where to file, and how the Board’s procedural rules interact with the substantive provisions of the Copyright Act is not straightforward for a layperson. This is where intellectual property attorneys play a critical role. They help creators identify the appropriate zone for filing, prepare applications in the prescribed form, and represent them through hearings. Given the Board’s jurisdiction over highly technical questions – such as whether a royalty rate is reasonable, or whether a licence for an orphan work should be granted – legal expertise is often indispensable to the outcome of a proceeding.

The 2017 merger: from Copyright Board to the Appellate Board 🔗

A significant structural change occurred when the Finance Act, 2017 merged the Copyright Board with the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Through Sections 160 and 161 of the Finance Act – which came into force on May 26, 2017 – all functions of the Copyright Board were transferred to the IPAB, which until then had only dealt with trademarks, patents, and geographical indications.

The amended Section 11 of the Copyright Act now reads that the Appellate Board established under Section 83 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, shall be the Appellate Board for copyright purposes as well. Critically, the same zonal jurisdiction principle was retained: the Appellate Board shall ordinarily hear proceedings within the zone in which the person instituting the proceeding resides or carries on business. The five-zone structure from the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 therefore continued to govern the geographical reach of copyright adjudication in India even after the merger.

The merger itself attracted criticism. Legal scholars and IP practitioners pointed out that passing such a structural change through a Finance Bill – technically a Money Bill that bypasses the Rajya Sabha – raised constitutional concerns. The move was challenged before the Bombay High Court, and questions about the rules framed under the Finance Act were later scrutinised by the Supreme Court. Despite these challenges, the merger remained in effect, with copyright matters continuing to be handled by the Appellate Board.

Key takeaways on the Board’s jurisdictional design 🔗

The nationwide jurisdiction of the Copyright Board – now continued through the Appellate Board – rests on three clear pillars. First, the jurisdiction extends to all of India without restriction. Second, hearings are to be conducted in the zone where the petitioner actually resides or works, ensuring practical accessibility. Third, the five-zone framework drawn from the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 provides the geographic structure within which this decentralised model operates. Together, these features reflect a deliberate legislative effort to make copyright dispute resolution inclusive – not a mechanism available only to those with the means to litigate in a centralised forum.

What do you think? Given India’s vast geographical and linguistic diversity, does a five-zone system go far enough to make copyright dispute resolution truly accessible – or should the law provide for even more localised mechanisms? And with the merger of the Copyright Board into the IPAB, do you think the specialised focus on copyright matters has been preserved, or has something been lost in the consolidation?

References

1. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/upload_document/CprAct.pdf
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1136195/
3. https://copyright.gov.in/frmIPAB.aspx
4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/470115/
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Reorganisation_Act,_1956
6. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ef8e848b-753c-4eb3-a9e6-198564494f23
7. https://ssrana.in/articles/india-copyright-board-merged-with-intellectual-property-appellate-board/
8. https://spicyip.com/2017/03/copyright-board-to-be-taken-over-by-ipab.html