Eastern Book Co. & Ors. v. D.B. Modak & Anr

Introduction 

Case summaries are an essential tool in legal education and practice. They condense lengthy judicial decisions into structured, analytical documents that highlight the facts, issues, reasoning, and outcomes. This process not only aids understanding of the law but also sharpens the analytical ability of interns and practitioners. The decision in Eastern Book Co. & Ors. v. D.B. Modak & Anr. is a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India concerning copyright protection in legal publishing. The Court addressed whether the publishers of Supreme Court Cases (SCC) could claim copyright over edited versions of judgments and associated editorial materials. The ruling clarified the standard of “originality” under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, marking a significant departure from the “sweat of the brow” doctrine and moving towards the “modicum of creativity” standard. This case also aligns Indian copyright jurisprudence with global standards, particularly the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. By balancing the rights of publishers and the public’s right to access judicial decisions, the Court shaped the future of legal publishing in India. 

Case Title and Citation 

Eastern Book Co. & Ors. v. D.B. Modak & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 809; (2008) 1 SCC 1 (India). 

Court and Bench 

Supreme Court of India. Bench: Justice B.N. Agrawal and Justice P.P. Naolekar. 

Date of Judgment 

12 December 2007. 

Parties Involved 

Appellants: Eastern Book Company (EBC) and its associates, publishers of Supreme Court Cases (SCC). 

Respondents: D.B. Modak and associated companies (Spectrum Business Support Ltd. and Regent Data Tech Pvt. Ltd.). 

Background and Facts of the Case 

EBC has been publishing Supreme Court Cases (SCC) since 1969. The SCC volumes consist of judgments of the Supreme Court of India. However, these are not mere reproductions of judicial opinions. The publishers add significant editorial inputs, including copy-editing, standardized formatting, cross-citations, headnotes, footnotes, and editorial notes. EBC argued that these contributions required skill, labour, and judgment, thereby qualifying as an “original literary work” under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The respondents developed CD-ROM products containing judgments of the Supreme Court, formatted in a manner similar to SCC. EBC alleged that the respondents directly copied its edited judgments and formatting, amounting to copyright infringement. 

Procedural History 

Delhi High Court (Single Judge): Denied injunction, holding judgments are public documents. Delhi High Court (Division Bench): Recognized copyright in headnotes, editorial notes, and footnotes, but not in judgments. 

Supreme Court of India: EBC appealed, leading to the present ruling. 

Issues Raised 

1. Whether copy-edited judgments published in SCC constitute “original literary works” under the Copyright Act, 1957. 
2. What standard of originality is required for copyright protection in derivative works. 3. Whether formatting, paragraph numbering, and minor corrections constitute sufficient creativity. 
3. Whether headnotes, footnotes, and editorial notes are eligible for copyright protection. 

Arguments of the Parties 

Appellants (EBC): 

– SCC is not a mere collection of judgments but involves creative intellectual effort. – Considerable skill, labour, and resources are invested in editing, formatting, and preparing headnotes. 

– Under Sections 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act, SCC volumes qualify as original literary works. 

– The respondents’ products replicated SCC’s style and editorial contributions, amounting to infringement under Section 51. 

Respondents (D.B. Modak & Others): 

– Judgments are “government works” under Section 2(k) of the Copyright Act and are in the public domain. 

– Section 52(1)(q) permits reproduction of judgments. 

– Copy-editing, formatting, or paragraph numbering involves no creativity; it is purely mechanical. 

– Only headnotes may be subject to copyright protection. 

Judgment / Final Decision

The Supreme Court delivered a partly favourable decision for EBC: 

– No copyright exists in raw judgments or in mere copy-editing/formatting. – Copyright does exist in headnotes, editorial notes, and footnotes. 

– Respondents were restrained from copying these elements but allowed to reproduce judgments themselves. 

Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi 

– Copyright protection requires a “modicum of creativity,” not just skill and labour. – Judicial decisions are public documents and government works; monopolizing them would restrict access. 

– Copy-editing and formatting lack sufficient originality. 

– Headnotes and editorial notes involve intellectual effort and qualify as “original literary works.” 

– The Court explicitly adopted the standard from Feist, rejecting the “sweat of the brow” doctrine. 

Obiter Dicta 

The Court emphasized balancing authors’ rights and public interest. Judicial decisions must remain freely accessible, but creative contributions deserve protection. 

Outcome 

– Appeal partly allowed. 

– EBC granted copyright for headnotes, editorial notes, and footnotes. 

– No copyright recognized in edited judgments or formatting. 

– Respondents allowed to publish judgments without copying SCC’s editorial content. 

Significance of the Case 

1. Established the “creativity threshold” for originality in India. 
2. Clarified protection for law publishers. 
3. Ensured judgments remain accessible to all. 
4. Brought Indian law in line with U.S. and U.K. precedents. 
5. Balanced incentives for publishers with public interest. 

Conclusion 

The Eastern Book Company judgment marked a turning point in Indian copyright law. By adopting the “modicum of creativity” standard, the Court rewarded intellectual creativity while safeguarding public access. The case remains foundational in Indian copyright jurisprudence and continues to influence disputes involving derivative works and legal reporting. 

Notes (Bluebook Citations)

1. Eastern Book Co. & Ors. v. D.B. Modak & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 809; (2008) 1 SCC 1 (India).
2. Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 362 (1991). 
3. Copyright Act, 1957, No. 14 of 1957, INDIA CODE (1993), § 13. 
4. Eastern Book Co., AIR 2008 SC 809 at 814. 
5. Copyright Act, 1957, §§ 13–14, 51. 
6. Id. § 2(k). 
7. Eastern Book Co., AIR 2008 SC 809 at 828. 
8. Id. at 833; see also Feist Publ’ns, 499 U.S. at 362.