CASE: R.G Anand vs M/S.

Delux Films & Ors

CITATION: AIR 1978 SC 1613

PARTIES: R.G ANAND Petitioner.

Vs.

M/S. DELUX FILMS & ORS. Respondent.

FACTS: Hum Hindustani was a play written by Mr. R.G. Anand, the appellant, and
an architect by profession, in 1953. It was enacted in 1954 after which the play
gained popularity. Mr. Mohan Sehgal, a film director and producer, requested R.G
Anand for a copy of the play as he wished to make a film based on it. However, upon
receiving the copy, he did not contact R.G Anand again and announced the
production of a motion picture titled "New Delhi". R.G Anand alleged that "New
Delhi" was entirely based upon the play "Hum Hindustani" and filed a suit for
copyright infringement at the trial court in Delhi. The Court concluded that although
the appellant was the owner of the copyright in ’Hum Hindustani’, there was no
violation of copyright. Thereafter, R.G Anand filed an appeal in the Delhi High
Court. The Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's decision. Thus, he filed an appeal
before the Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES: The primary issue involved herein was whether the film titled ‘New
Delhi’, created by the respondent breaches the appellant’s copyright for the play titled
‘Hum Hindustani’ or not.
Holding: Section 1 & 2 of the Copyright Act, 1911.
Procedural History: The plaintiff, R.G. Anand, filed a suit against M/S Delux Films
and others alleging copyright infringement and sought an injunction to restrain the
defendants from producing a film that he claimed was based on his copyrighted play.
The trial court initially granted an interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff. The
defendants appealed the decision to the High Court of Bombay, challenging the
grant of the interim injunction. The High Court upheld the decision of the trial court
and maintained the interim injunction. Dissatisfied with the High Court's decision,
the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of India.
Rationale: The rationale behind the judgment are Idea-Expression Dichotomy. The
court emphasized the distinction between the idea behind a creative work and its
expression. It held that copyright protection extends to the expression of an idea but
not to the idea itself. Substantial Similarity the court considered whether there was
substantial similarity between the two works. It held that while there were similarities
in the theme and basic plot, the expression of the idea in the play and the movie was
substantially different. Independent Creation the defendants argued that they had
independently created their work without directly copying the play.

Dicta: The Supreme Court pointed out that where a scriptwriter has to prove that
there has been a breach of his copyright against a film, it will be difficult for him to
do so. The main reason behind it is that a movie consists of broader concepts and
ideas than a play. If only after watching them both, some sameness comes across,
then it would be a breach of copyright. The court also stated that the possibility of
trying to evade plagiarism by covering broader concepts and making few changes
here and there could certainly be prevalent. Things might have been different had the
facts of the present case were before this court.
Dissent: There was no specific dissenting opinion recorded as it was a unanimous
judgment by the Supreme Court of India.
Party’s Arguments: The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submitted that the application of the concerned laws by the Trial Court was
inappropriate. The court also failed to consider the legal aspects developed by courts
in India regarding the copyright breach. The learned counsel further asserted that the
film has an inescapable similarity to the play written by the appellant. The storyline
was more or less the same, with the location being the same place as the play. The
families involved had similar backgrounds, that of Punjabi and Madrasi, and the
leading lady was fond of singing and dancing, just like the one in the play. Lastly, the
learned counsel submitted that the respondent tried to copy the stage show, breaching
the appellant’s copyright, and made the movie without gaining the permit from the
appellant.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
strictly denied the claims made by the appellant. He stated that the film and the play
stood far apart from each other. Both of them had different events involved, and their
essence varied to a great extent. The learned counsel further asserted that the Trial
Court was correct in its evaluation. Thus, there was no question of a breach of the
appellant’s copyright.
Judgment: The Supreme Court stated that even though the film and the play had a
foundation based on the idea of provincialism, similarities were negligible. Both of
them were very different in their context. There were various plots in the film that
were not present in the play. The apex court also stated that an ordinary man would
not scan any similarity between the two. Thus, it was held that there was no breach of
the appellant’s copyright. The Supreme Court accordingly rejected the appellant’s
plea, upholding the Trial Court and the Delhi High Court’s decision.