SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

UNDER ORDER XXI, RULE 3(1)(a), SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ______ OF 2023

(ARISING FROM THE JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED 14.11.2023

PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IN WRIT PETITION
(CIVIL) 10941/2017 (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION))

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATUS OF PARTIES

IN THE IN THE
HIGH COURT HON’BLE COURT

ARPIT BHARGAVA PETITIONER PETITIONER

AND

1. UNION OF INDIA RESPONDENT NO. 1 RESPONDENT NO. 1

THROUGH SECRETARY
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
MINISTRY OF LAW
A-WING, SHASTRI BHAWAN
NEW DELHI – 110001

2. UNION OF INDIA RESPONDENT NO. 2 RESPONDENT NO. 2

THROUGH CONTROLLER
OF PUBLICATIONS
MINISTRY OF HOUSING
AND URBAN AFFAIRS
NIRMAN BHAWAN
NEW DELHI – 110001

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

INDIA

TO,

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES

OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONER ABOVE- NAMED MOST

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The Petitioner is filing the above Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India against the Judgment and Final Order dated 14.11.2023 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) 10941/2017 (Public
Interest Litigation) whereby the Hon'ble Delhi High Court disposed of the public interest
litigation without allowing the prayers made in the said PIL.

2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:

The present S.L.P. involves amongst others the following substantial questions of law,
which are of general public importance:

A. Whether government is duty bound to publish and make available authentic,

accurate and reasonably priced hard copies of all Acts of Parliament, Rules,
Notifications, Regulations, etc. along with amendments from time to time?
B. Whether ‘right to know’ under Article 19 (1) (a) of Constitution of India extends to
ensuring availability of authentic, accurate and reasonably priced hard copies of all
Acts of Parliament, Rules, Notifications, Regulations, etc. along with amendments
from time to time to public at large?
C. Whether government is the copyright owner in the Acts of Parliament along with
Rules, Regulations, Notifications etc. in terms of provisions of Copyright Act, 1957
in particular Section 17(d)?
D. Whether act of publishing 'Bare Acts' by parties other than government constitute
infringement of copyright of government in terms of Section 52 (1)(q) of Copyright
Act 1957?
E. Whether the Hon’ble Delhi High Court erred in not even dealing with prayers
mentioned in Writ Petition (Civil) 10941/2017 in particularly Prayer “A” and Prayer
“D” while passing judgment dated 14.11.2023?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3 (2):

The Petitioner states that no other petition seeking leave to Appeal has been filed against
the Impugned Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2023 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court
in W.P. (C) 10941/2017.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:

The Annexures P1 to P10 produced along with the Special Leave Petition are true typed
copies of the pleadings/documents which form part of the records of the case in the Court
below against which order, the leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.

5. GROUNDS:

Leave to Appeal is sought inter alia on the following grounds that are urged in the
alternative strictly without prejudice to one another:

I. Because the Hon’ble Delhi High Court did not even deal with prayers more
 particularly Prayer “A” and Prayer “D” made in W.P. (C) 10941/2017 and
passed an unreasoned order dated 14.11.2023 and is thus, bad in law.
II. Because the Hon'ble Delhi High Court did not even consider pleadings on record
while passing the order dated 14.11.2019 and is thus, bad in law.
III. Because the Hon’ble Delhi High Court did not consider that there is blatant laxity
on the part of Respondents in not giving effect to the fundamental rights
guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (a) of Constitution of India by not publishing on
its own and ensuring availability of authentic, accurate and reasonably priced hard
copies of central acts, rules, notifications, regulations, etc. and various
amendments from time to time for the benefit of public at large.
IV. Because the Hon’ble Delhi High Court did not consider that as per the information
available on the website of Respondent No.1 itself, it is responsible for publication
of Central Acts, Ordinances, Regulations, etc. through its legislative and
publication department amongst other functions and yet it has not performed its
obligations under the statute and thus, such gross abuse of power cannot be
allowed to supersede the larger public interest served by publishing and making
available across India authentic, accurate and reasonably priced hard copies of
central acts, rules, notifications, regulations, etc. and various amendments from
time to time.
V. Because the Hon’ble Delhi High Court failed to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction
vested in it by virtue of Article 226 of Constitution of India.
VI. Because the Respondents are guilty of violating the fundamental right enshrined
under Article 19(1)(a) of Constitution of India which includes “right to know”.
The Respondents have an obligation to make available and ensure dissemination
of knowledge of Central Acts, Rules, etc. being the copyright owner.
VII. Because the Respondent No. 1, for reasons best known to them, despite being
tasked with the objective of publishing Central Acts, Rules, Notifications,
Regulations etc. is not doing anything towards adequate publications of the same.
Not only this, nothing has been done for years now, for ensuring its availability to
public at large. It may be mentioned here that Respondent No. 2 states on its
website to insist on government publications and purchase government
publications which are authentic, accurate and strictly in accordance with
government policies but has failed to achieve aforesaid objective. Not only this,
blatant violations of the provisions of the Copyright Act has been committed by
Respondents thereby making the provisions redundant.
VIII. Because the “right to know” under Article 19 (1) (a) of Constitution of India
includes availability of hard copies of Acts, Rules, etc. which are authentic,
accurate and reasonably priced as well as online access which may or may not be
free. Thus, online and offline access to laws of India to public at large is
complementary to each other and not substitute of each other.
IX. Because the Hon’ble Delhi High Court failed to consider that it is the own case of
Respondent No. 1 that there is a publication department responsible for publishing
 Acts, Rules, etc. and the publications of Acts, etc. takes place on demand received
from sales counter of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan Wing of Respondent No. 1 and at
counter of Respondent No. 1, Civil Lines, Delhi. Not only this, it is only at two
places across India, the publications published by Respondent No. 1 are available.
X. Because vide RTI reply dated 15.06.2017 provided by Respondent No. 1 to
Petitioner, it is apparent that no proper budget is allocated, no proper infrastructure
is developed and no proper channel is present to ensure availability of Acts, Rules,
Notifications, etc. to readers and the will to give meaningful effect to fundamental
right of “right to know” is completely missing.
XI. Because the Respondents have failed to appreciate that the user of Acts of
Parliament, Rules, Notifications, Regulations and various amendments etc. are
spread across India and is ever rising and includes Hon’ble Judges, Lawyers,
Other professionals, Parliamentarians, Police, various government offices, various
other courts, tribunals, libraries, private institutions, organizations, NGOs,
Students, Colleges etc. The list of users includes every individual or member of
public across India, who needs to give effect to his rights in any manner
whatsoever and thus, require authentic, accurate and reasonably priced
publications of government.
XII. Because the Hon’ble Delhi High Court failed to consider that the loss to public at
large is not only due to high prices charged but due to inaccurate and non-
authentic reproduction of Acts, Rules, Notifications, Regulations etc. The
examples cited by Petitioner wherein inaccurate publication of provisions of Act
of Parliament has taken place were also not taken into consideration. The prime
example of such inaccurate reproduction is publication of Rules in Ancient
Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act (AMASR Bare Act), 1958
by Universal Publishers in the year 2015. It may be noted that Rule 6 provided in
the AMASR Bare Act of Universal Publishers does not make a mention of proviso
added to Rule 6 and has published an incomplete and false Rule 6. The same
became clear when the Petitioner went through the Official Gazette and when the
Petitioner further compared Rule 6 published by Universal Publishers with Rule 6
published by Professional Book Publisher of the year 2014 which contained Rule
6 along with its proviso. Therefore, from the above, it is clear that the loss is
unimaginable because general public purchases these bare acts which are
unauthentic and unreasonably priced, unmindful of the fact that it is the duty of the
Respondents to publish the same and ensure its availability to the public at large.
XIII. Because the Hon'ble Delhi High Court failed to consider that in the year 2017, a
tender was published by Central Government department of Directorate of Income
Tax, Printing and Publication Wing, Hans Bhawan, Delhi for publishing and
supply of Income Tax Act 2017 and Income Tax Rules 2017 (in English language)
for a quantity of 15000 each dated 10.02.2017 which, of course, would have been
awarded to a party being ‘L1’ bidder. It is shocking to say the least that for an Act
of parliament which is under copyright ownership of one government department
 itself, the central government instead of getting the same published from
Respondent No. 1 or 2, used to get it published from an outside agency/publisher.
It is interesting to note here that all the 15000 copies are meant for use by officers
of Income Tax Department. The Petitioner apprehends that the bid at which the L1
bidder published the said Act and Rules 2017 was far lesser than the MRP
published for use by public at large thereby making it amply clear that arbitrary
decisions without any rationale and discriminatory policies are being adopted by
Respondents and other Central Government Departments. The said tender came to
be cancelled on complaint of Petitioner, which fact was informed to Petitioner vide
letter dated 29.01.2018 by Income Tax Department.
XIV. Because the Hon’ble Delhi High Court failed to consider that a false RTI reply
dated 15.06.2017 was provided by Respondent no.1 when it stated that no person
is copyright owner of the Acts of parliament since it is in public domain. However,
in contrast, Section 17(d) of the Copyright Act 1957 clearly provides that in the
absence of any agreement to the contrary, in case of Government Work which
includes “Acts, Rules, Notifications, Regulations etc.” the government has the first
copyright ownership.
XV. Because the Respondents have utterly failed to protect its own Intellectual
Property Rights in the “Acts of Parliament” and has led to a situation where the
provisions of the Copyright Act itself have become redundant. Not only this, it is a
big embarrassment internationally for the entire Indian economy since it is
apparent that government itself is not serious in its endeavors to enforce provisions
of Copyright Act 1957.
XVI. Because the Respondents are guilty of contravening and making provisions of
Section 52(1)(q)(i) and Section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act,1957 nugatory by
allowing private publishers to publish mere Central Acts without addition of any
original matter or commentary being incorporated therein. From the bare acts of
various private publishers, it is amply clear that there is no originality involved in
the work and mere ‘copy paste’ has been done of derivative work.
XVII. Because the Respondents are guilty of not developing adequate infrastructure, no
proper budget allocation, no proper channel to ensure availability of Central Acts
etc. across India despite the fact that Respondent No. 1 is the oldest limb of
government of India dating back to 1833. Shockingly, in reply dated 15.06.2017, it
is mentioned by Respondent No. 1 that some Central Acts etc. are available only at
two places across India which includes Respondent No. 2 as well.
XVIII. Because the Respondent No. 2 is guilty of running its ministry by wasting public
resources. Respondent No. 2 is in possession of expensive machines for publishing
and printing government books, however, for reasons best known to them, has
failed to publish all such government books and allowed the machines to be
kept idle.
XIX. Because the Respondents have failed to frame a policy/guidelines/regulation
regarding publications and dissemination of knowledge relating to acts of
 parliament, rules, notifications etc. through a transparent, accurate and
authentic mechanism aimed at benefiting public at large and providing for
fixing of accountability of officials of respondent in case of its failure to act in
a time bound manner to frame a policy/guidelines/regulations in regard to
above. All this is necessary in order to ensure publication and availability of
accurate, authentic and reasonably priced hard copies of Central Acts, Rules,
Notifications, Regulations etc.
XX. Because the Hon’ble Delhi High Court did not even consider the judgment
passed by this Hon'ble Court in the matter of Eastern Book Company vs. D. B.
Modak (2008 1 SCC 1) and did not consider interpreting provisions of
Copyright Act 1957 in terms thereof.
XXI. Because the Hon’ble Delhi High Court failed to consider that the public
interest litigation filed by Petitioner was primarily for ensuring publications
and availability of ‘hard copies’ of Acts of parliament, along with Rules,
Notifications, Regulations, etc. and ensuring compliance of provisions of
Copyright Act by one and all. The stand of the Respondent No. 1 in its counter
affidavit dated 14.08.2018 that free ‘online’ access to Acts of Parliament is
made available on INDIACODE website had nothing to do with present Public
Interest Litigation, the scope of which was broader covering publication and
availability of ‘hard copies’ of Acts of parliament by Respondents which is
nothing but a fundamental right of each and every citizen to know the law as
well as rules etc.
XXII. Because the Hon’ble Delhi High Court failed to consider that it was the own
case of Respondent No. 1 in its counter affidavit that it has a publication
department which comes out with various publications in ‘hard copy’ on the
basis of demand received at the counter of Vidhi Sahitya Prakashan Wing of
Respondent No. 1 (Opposite Supreme Court of India) and Sales Counter of
Respondent No. 2 at Civil Lines.
XXIII. Because the Hon’ble Delhi High Court failed to even consider the fact that it
was an admitted position that hard copies of publications which includes Acts,
Rules etc. are made available by Respondent No. 1 at only two places across
India.

The Petitioner craves leave to add to/alter/amend the above grounds at the time of
hearing of the present Petition.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM PRAYER:

NIL

7. MAIN PRAYER:

It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
 (a) Grant the Petitioner Special Leave to Appeal against the Final Judgment dated
14.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.
10941/2017; and
(b) Pass such other and/or further order(s) as deemed just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

8. INTERIM PRAYER:

NIL

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL DUTY

BOUND IN EVER PRAY.

Drawn and Filed by:

NEW DELHI

DRAWN AND FILED ON: Advocate for the Petitioner

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

AFFIDAVIT
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
UNDER ORDER XXI, RULE 3(1)(a), SUPREME COURT RULES, 2013
(Under Article 136 of the Constitution of India)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ______ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Arpit Bhargava ………… PETITIONER

VERSUS

Union of India & others ………… RESPONDENT

Affidavit of Arpit Bhargava, Son of Sarad Bhargava,

Resident of 117 K/9 Gutaiya Bazar, Nawab Ganj, Saket,
District South, Delhi - 110017.

I, the deponent, above-named do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:-

1. That the deponent is the sole petitioner in the above special leave petition and as such he
is well acquainted with the facts and circumstances deposed.

2. That the contents of the attached special leave petition are true and correct to my
knowledge and belief and that no part of this affidavit is false.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

Solemnly affirmed on this day of 22nd of December, 2023 that the contents of this affidavit,
which have been read over and explained to me, are true and correct to my knowledge and
nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT