List of Current Affairs

Source: Calcutta High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Justice Kausik Chanda held that the advertisement tax demand by KMC was arbitrary, lacked legal backing, violated principles of natural justice, and was thus quashed. 

• The Calcutta High Court held this in the matter of The Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of The Calcutta Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Cricket Association of Bengal & Ors. (2025) Case? 

• The Cricket Association of Bengal holds a lease for the Eden Gardens ground in Kolkata.  
• The actual owner of the property is the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, making the Union of India the lessor. 
• In 1996, CAB organized two major cricket events at Eden Gardens: 
  • The inaugural ceremony of the Wills World Cup on 11th February 1996. 
  • A semifinal match of the World Cup on 13th March 1996. 
  • During these events, various advertisements were displayed both inside and outside the Eden Gardens Stadium. 
• Following these events, on 27th March 1996, the Kolkata Municipal Corporation issued a demand notice to CAB. 
• The notice claimed a sum of ₹51,18,450 as advertisement tax for the two days of the World Cup events. KMC invoked Section 204 of the KMC Act, 1980 as the legal basis for this tax demand. 
• CAB, along with its president and secretary, challenged this demand notice by filing a writ petition. Their challenge was based on three primary grounds: 
  • Jurisdictional Challenge:  
    • CAB argued that the advertisements were displayed within Eden Gardens Stadium, which is not a public place. Since the advertisements were not visible to the public from a public street or public place, the provisions of Section 204 of the KMC Act, 1980 (as it existed before the 2019 amendment) did not apply. 
  • Procedural Violations: 
    • CAB contended that the demand notice was arbitrary and issued in breach of natural justice principles. They specifically objected that:  
    • The basis for calculating the claimed amount was not disclosed. 
    • They were not given an opportunity to be heard before the notice was issued. 
    • The notice lacked proper computation details. 
  • Constitutional Immunity:  
    • CAB invoked Article 285 of the Constitution of India, arguing that since the Union of India owns the land housing Eden Gardens Stadium, KMC cannot levy any tax on the property. 

• The Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court accepted CAB's arguments and quashed the demand notice dated 27th March 1996. 
• Aggrieved by the Single Judge's decision, KMC and its officers filed the present appeal challenging the judgment that favored CAB. 
• The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 204 of the KMC Act, 1980 (pre-2019 amendment) concerning advertisement tax, and Article 285 of the Constitution regarding exemption of Union property from State taxation. 
• The fundamental question is whether KMC has the authority to levy advertisement tax on displays at Eden Gardens Stadium, considering the nature of the venue, the visibility of advertisements, and the constitutional protection of Union-owned property. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Statutory Compliance Principle: The court observed that when a statutory power is conferred with a prescribed mode of exercise, no other method can be adopted, following the established principle in Taylor v. Taylor that where power is given to do something in a certain way, it must be done exactly in that manner or not at all. 
• Arbitrary Tax Assessment: The court held that without framing regulations or budget estimates prescribing advertisement tax rates, KMC's computation and imposition of such tax would be arbitrary with no rational basis, allowing KMC to quantify tax as per its sweet will, which cannot be countenanced under the rule of law. 
• Natural Justice Violations: The court noted that the demand notice lacked computation details and provided only a two-day response window, which was unreasonable and arbitrary, while KMC failed to address CAB's reply and instead initiated criminal proceedings, violating principles of natural justice. 
• Legal Unsustainability of Demand: The court held that the demand notice was legally unsustainable as it failed to provide any breakup of the ₹51,18,450 claimed, did not specify which advertisements were taxed, and gave no explanation of calculation basis, making it impossible to understand or contest meaningfully. 
• Definition of Public Place: The court observed that 'public place' must be given its natural meaning as a place open to the public at large without any restrictions, where any member of the public has access without requiring anyone's permission, and as soon as conditions are imposed, that place ceases to be public. 
• Eden Gardens as Private Space: The court held that Eden Gardens Stadium cannot be considered a public place since CAB, as lessee, can deny entry to anyone even during matches, and members of the public do not have absolute or unrestricted access, emphasizing that capacity or visitor numbers do not determine public nature. 
• Rejection of "Restricted Public Place" Concept: The court observed that the concept of "restricted public place" finds no place in Section 204 of the KMC Act nor is defined in any dictionary, rejecting KMC's argument that Eden Gardens could be classified under this non-existent category. 
• Tax Liability Principle: The court found merit in CAB's argument that even if advertisement tax was leviable, it could only be imposed on advertisers and not on CAB, absent any evidence of arrangement whereby CAB agreed to bear the advertisement tax burden. 
• Final Determination: Since Eden Gardens Stadium was held not to be a 'public place' making Section 204 inapplicable, and the demand notice was otherwise bad in law, the court dismissed the appeal without considering other contentions including constitutional immunity under Article 285. 

What is the Rule of Law? 

• Fundamental Definition: Rule of Law is one of the ideals of political morality representing government based on principles of law and not of men, acting as a building block for the formation of a democratic society. 
• Universal Principles: Rule of Law is founded on four universal principles - just law, open government, impartial and accessible justice, and accountability. 
• Constitutional Status: Though not explicitly defined in the Indian Constitution, Rule of Law has been declared by the Supreme Court as one of the basic features of the Constitution and is seen as an integral part of good governance. 
• Dicey's Three Principles: According to A.V. Dicey, Rule of Law contains three basic principles - supremacy of law (no punishment without legal violation proven in court), equality before law (no one is above the law), and predominance of legal spirit (constitutional rights derived from court decisions). 
• Core Characteristics: Rule of Law ensures supremacy of law, equality before law, protection against arbitrary actions, requirement that all government actions conform to law, and that the judiciary serves as preserver and protector of this principle. 
• Constitutional Implementation: The Indian Constitution incorporates Rule of Law through various provisions including judicial review powers (Articles 13, 32, 136, 142, 226), fundamental rights (Article 14 for equality, Article 21 for due process), and the Preamble's principles of justice, equality and liberty. 
• Binding on All Organs: All three organs of government - Legislative, Executive and Judiciary - must adhere to the principle of Rule of Law, with any law made by Central or State Governments required to be consistent with the Constitution. 
• Natural Justice Integration: Rule of Law takes into account the principle of natural justice and serves as the fundamental basis of democracies around the world, requiring independent and impartial judiciary. 
• Indian Exceptions: India does not follow Dicey's concept in strict sense, providing certain exceptions including discretionary powers to President and Governor (Articles 72, 85, 161, 200), immunities to constitutional authorities, police powers for cognizable offences, and diplomatic immunities under international law. 
• Article 285 : Article 285 exemplifies Rule of Law by establishing clear constitutional principles for Union property taxation - providing general exemption from State taxation while allowing specific exceptions for pre-constitutional liabilities, thus preventing arbitrary State action against Union property. 

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Manmohan clarified that its interim stay order is binding only inter se the parties to CS(COMM) 714 of 2022 pending before the Delhi High Court, and cannot be relied upon by third parties to avoid payment of licence fees to PPL. 

• The Supreme Court  held this in the matter of Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality Private Limited (2025). 

What was the Background of Phonographic Performance Ltd. v. Azure Hospitality Private Limited. (2025) Case? 

• Plaintiff: Phonographic Performance Ltd. (PPL) - A music licensing company claiming ownership of copyrighted sound recordings. 
• Defendant: Azure Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. - Restaurant chain operator running approximately 86 outlets under brands including 'Mamagoto', 'Dhaba', and 'Sly Granny'. 
• PPL filed a copyright infringement suit against Azure Hospitality alleging unauthorised use and exploitation of its copyrighted sound recordings in Azure's restaurants and bars without obtaining proper licensing. 
• PPL representatives discovered that Azure's restaurant outlets were playing copyrighted sound recordings owned by PPL without securing appropriate licences from PPL. 
• PPL sought licence fees from Azure for the commercial use of its sound recordings in the hospitality establishments. 
• PPL claimed exclusive rights to license its sound recording repertoire to commercial establishments. 
• Azure contested PPL's right to grant licences for sound recordings, questioning PPL's legal authority to do so. 
• Azure challenged the requirement to pay licence fees to PPL for playing music in its establishments. 
• Recorded Music Performance Ltd. (RMPL) operates as a registered copyright society with established tariff structures for music licensing. 
• The case involves questions about whether PPL can independently license sound recordings or must operate through registered copyright societies like RMPL. 
• The dispute affects the broader hospitality industry's obligations regarding music licensing and payments. 
• Other commercial establishments have been monitoring the case outcomes to understand their licensing obligations. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Delhi High Court Single Judge Observations (3rd March 2025): 
  • The Single Judge found that a prima facie case of copyright infringement was established against Azure Hospitality. 
  • The court recognised PPL's inherent right as owner of copyrighted works to license those works. 
  • The judge held that PPL's licensing rights could not be curtailed by Section 33 of the Copyright Act. 
  • An interim injunction was granted restraining Azure from playing PPL's copyrighted sound recordings in its outlets. 
• Delhi High Court Division Bench Observations (15th April 2025): 
  • The Division Bench modified the Single Judge's interim injunction order without ruling on the substantive merits of the copyright infringement claim. 
  • The court directed Azure to pay PPL licence fees calculated according to RMPL's established tariff structure. 
  • The Division Bench treated the payment arrangement as if PPL were a member of RMPL for tariff calculation purposes. 
  • This direction effectively allowed Azure to continue playing the music while ensuring compensation to PPL. 
• Supreme Court Observations (21st April 2025): 
  • The Supreme Court stayed the Division Bench's direction requiring Azure to make payments to PPL under RMPL tariff rates. 
  • The court clarified that the original Single Judge's interim injunction restraining Azure from playing PPL's songs would not operate during the stay period. 
  • The Supreme Court did not restore the complete prohibition on playing PPL's music, allowing Azure operational flexibility. 
• Supreme Court Clarificatory Observations (19th June 2025): 
  • The court emphasized that its 21st April 2025 stay order applies strictly inter se between the parties to the commercial suit (CS(COMM) 714 of 2022) pending before the Delhi High Court. 
  • The Supreme Court clarified that third parties cannot rely on the stay order to avoid paying licence fees to PPL for using its copyrighted sound recordings. 
  • The court distinguished between the specific litigation parties and broader industry obligations regarding music licensing. 
  • The clarification prevents misinterpretation of the stay order by commercial establishments not party to the specific litigation. 
• Judicial Approach: 
  • The courts have been careful to balance PPL's copyright interests with Azure's commercial operations. 
  • The Supreme Court has avoided making definitive rulings on substantive copyright issues, focusing on interim relief measures. 
  • The judiciary has recognised the broader industry implications while maintaining focus on the specific dispute between the parties. 

What is Section 33 of the Copyright Act,1957? 

• Section 33 deals with the Registration of Copyright society. 
• Primary Prohibition: 
  • No person or association of persons shall commence or carry on the business of issuing or granting licences in respect of any work in which copyright subsists except under registration granted by the Central Government. 
• Individual Copyright Owner's Rights: 
  • An owner of copyright shall, in his individual capacity, continue to have the right to grant licences in respect of his own works. 
  • Such individual licensing rights must be consistent with the copyright owner's obligations as a member of the registered copyright society. 
• Special Provisions for Cinematograph Films and Sound Recordings: 
  • The business of issuing or granting licence in respect of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works incorporated in cinematograph films or sound recordings shall be carried out only through a copyright society duly registered under the Act. 
• Transitional Provisions: 
  • A performing rights society functioning in accordance with Section 33 provisions before the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994 shall be deemed to be a copyright society. 
  • Every such existing society must get itself registered within one year from the commencement of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 1994. 
• Application Process: 
  • Any association of persons fulfilling prescribed conditions may apply for permission to do licensing business to the Registrar of Copyrights. 
  • The Registrar of Copyrights shall submit the application to the Central Government. 
• Registration Criteria: 
  • The Central Government may register an association as a copyright society having regard to the interests of authors and other owners of rights. 
  • The Government considers the interest and convenience of the public, particularly groups likely to seek licences. 
  • The ability and professional competence of the applicants is evaluated. 
  • Registration is subject to prescribed conditions. 
• Monopoly Provision: 
  • The Central Government shall not ordinarily register more than one copyright society to do business in respect of the same class of works. 
• Registration Duration and Renewal: 
  • Registration granted to a copyright society shall be for a period of five years. 
  • Registration may be renewed from time to time before the end of every five years on request in prescribed form. 
  • The Central Government may renew registration after considering the Registrar of Copyrights' report on the working of the copyright society. 
• Control Requirements for Renewal: 
  • Renewal of registration is subject to the continued collective control of the copyright society being shared with authors of works. 
  • Authors must maintain control in their capacity as owners of copyright or the right to receive royalty. 
• Existing Societies Compliance: 
  • Every copyright society already registered before the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 must get itself registered under this Chapter within one year. 
• Cancellation Powers: 
  • The Central Government may cancel registration if satisfied that a copyright society is being managed in a manner detrimental to the interests of authors and other owners of rights. 
  • Cancellation follows such inquiry as may be prescribed. 
• Suspension Powers: 
  • The Central Government may suspend registration if it considers such action necessary in the interest of authors and other owners of rights. 
  • Suspension may also occur for non-compliance of Sections 33A, sub-section (3) of Section 35, and Section 36. 
  • Suspension may be imposed for unauthorised changes in the copyright society's instrument of establishment or incorporation. 
  • Suspension shall not exceed one year as specified in the order. 
• Administrator Appointment: 
  • During suspension, the Government shall appoint an administrator to discharge the functions of the copyright society.