R.G.Anand v. Delux Films
Hamna Fahad
Aligarh Muslim University
This Case Commentary is written by Hamna Fahad, a Fourth Year Law Student of Aligarh Muslim University
CASE NAME: R.G.ANAND v. DELUX FILMS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CITATION: AIR 1978 SC 1613
PETITIONER: R.G.ANAND
RESPONDENTS: M/S DELUX FILMS & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 18TH AUGUST, 1978
BENCH: HON’BLE JUSTICE S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI; HON’BLE JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH; HON’BLE JUSTICE R.S.PATHAK
Abstract
The case at hand is about copyright infringement, and particularly about the doctrine that what finds protection under copyright law is the expression of an idea and not the idea itself. Here, moviemaker Mohan Sehgal was accused by playwright R.G. Anand of having copied his play "Hum Hindustani" in "New Delhi," the movie. This became a landmark precedent in Indian law regarding the line between idea and expression.
Facts of the Case[1]
The case begins with R.G. Anand, a playwright who wrote and produced a play called "Hum Hindustani" in 1953. The play, which came with the theme of regionalism in India, became a phenomenal overnight success. Mohan Sehgal was one of the prominent film directors who evinced interest in making a movie based on the play by Anand. Anand submits that Sehgal asked for a copy of the script which he readily provided. But then Sehgal did not meet Anand again. Some years later, Sehgal brought out a film called "New Delhi" for release, and according to him Anand objected on the ground that it was an unauthorized adaptation of his play "Hum Hindustani".
The story starts with R.G. Anand, who was a playwright. He wrote and published his play "Hum Hindustani" in 1953. The play did very well within the short period since the theme was about regionalism in India. Film director Mohan Sehgal had taken a great interest in adapting Anand's play for cinema. According to Anand, Sehgal had asked for a copy of the script which he provided him. Thereafter, the Sehgal did not communicate at all. Sometime later, Sehgal announced his film "New Delhi," and what one noticed was that the film was a substantially unauthorized adaptation of Anand's play "Hum Hindustani."
Issues Raised[2]
1. Was R.G. Anand the copyright owner of "Hum Hindustani"?
2. Was Anand's copyright for his play infringed by the film "New Delhi" through incorporating material from his play?
3. Did the defendants infringe by making, exhibiting, distributing, or trafficking in "New Delhi"?
Contentions on behalf of the Appellant (R.G. Anand)[3]
Anand asserted that his play and the film "New Delhi" shared the same basic plot, character relationship, and theme. The two works were centered around an issue of regionalism in India, and Anand argued that the film had heavily borrowed from his play's narrative structure, characterization, and themes. He contended that the similarity between the two works was close to being a coincidence, and therefore, the film must have been copied from his play. He claimed damages and an injunction to restrain the release of the film, as well as an accounting of the profits that the film would generate from its exhibition.
Contentions on Behalf of the Respondents (Mohan Sehgal and Others)[4]
The respondents pleaded that regionalism was a common theme, and the defendant could not claim protection of it by way of copyright. They did concede that the play and the film dealt with regionalism but contended that this was not sufficient to amount to an infringement. They also referred to the differences existing between the two works: for example, that issues like dowry-related issues had not been featured in Anand's play but found inclusion in the film. According to them, "New Delhi" was an original work independent of "Hum Hindustani," and did not copy any of its substantial elements.
Related Provision[5]
This case looked at sections 1 and 2 of the Copyright Act, 1911, that applied during that period; with pay especial focus on what a "dramatic work" is in this context and if the thematic content can be considered infringement in a case of copying.
Key Elements of the Judgment
The Supreme Court concurred with the earlier judgments of the trial court and High Court, which led to the defendants' judgment, yet it also enunciated very important principles of copyright infringement.
1. Idea-Expression Dichotomy: the court again restored the idea that copyright law does not protect any general ideas or themes, but only its specific expression. Both Hum Hindustani and New Delhi dealt with regionalism, and the court held that the fact that two films may be dealing with the same theme is not an infringement. Copyright would apply only to the specific way an idea may be presented through particular scenes, dialogues, or characters.
2. Substantial Similarity Test The court applied the substantial similarity test, therefore comparing the two works in their entirety. There were some superficial similarities between the play and the film. This is, however important in this case because both of them were different when seen in their entirety. When the overall impression of one work is substantially similar to another in a way that an ordinary observer would find it to be a case of copying then copyright infringement has occurred.
3. Themes are Not Subject to Copyright: The judgments held that themes, which are supposedly copyrightable, are again not subject to copyright. The judges, without any doubt, stated that wide themes or concepts like regionalism cannot be copyrighted. The court also said that if the plot or character bears some little similarities, it would not make the case of infringement because there has to be an evident and significant duplication of the original expression of work.
4. Freedom to Use Ideas: The judgment affirmed that ideas and concepts lie open for free use. Themes under copyright law cannot be monopolized, and creators can take the same themes and make different presentations. In conclusion, New Delhi and Hum Hindustani presented the theme of regionalism in different ways. The film did not violate the play in the case of R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films explained an important issue of copyright law in India that had been derailed somewhat: a line of distinction between the idea and its expression. The court verdict restored to life once again the principle that ideas are free for all to borrow but the expression can only be claimed as copyrightable. The case provided a precedent to test copyright infringement by the procedure which held that for establishing an infringement, substantial similarity between two works must exist. It also emphasized the principle of the idea-expression dichotomy and the test of substantial similarity about copyright. Such a judgment passed decades ago is now a precedent that supports Indian copyright law and helps define parameters and limits regarding intellectual property protection in India.[6]
Conclusion
The R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films case delineated the distinction between ideas and their expression within copyright jurisprudence in India. Here, it was held that though ideas in themselves cannot be copyrighted, the particular form or manner that may have been taken for putting those ideas into expression is capable of protection by copyright. The question of copyright infringement was weighed on guidelines related to the substantial similarity of works. Even today, it is a landmark judgment that has defined limitations for intellectual property rights in India.
Reference
● https://lawtimesjournal.in/r-g-anand-vs-m-s-delux-flims-and-others/
● https://indiancaselaw.in/r-g-anand-v-delux-films-and-ors/
● https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abd0e4b014971140d698
[1] https://lawtimesjournal.in/r-g-anand-vs-m-s-delux-flims-and-others/
[2] https://indiancaselaw.in/r-g-anand-v-delux-films-and-ors/
[3] https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abd0e4b014971140d698
[4] https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abd0e4b014971140d698
[5] https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2022/01/11/analysis-of-r-g-anand-v-m-s-deluxe-films-and-its-relevance-in-recent-times/
[6] R.G. Anand v M/S Deluxe Films and Ors available at
(visited on oct 19.2024)