On May 24, 2025, The Supreme Court has disposed of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by Next Radio Limited challenging the constitutional validity of Rule 29(4) of the Copyright Rules, 2013, after the petitioners chose to withdraw the plea during the hearing.
The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. During the proceedings, senior counsel for the petitioners presented a copy of an order dated March 13, 2024, passed by a single judge of the Delhi High Court in a related suit and sought permission to withdraw the petition. The bench observed that it found "no merit at all in the constitutional validity challenge" but clarified that it was not placing its judicial stamp on the Delhi High Court’s order. The SLP was accordingly disposed of as withdrawn.
“We, however, make it clear that we have not given our judicial imprimatur to the order dated 13th March, 2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi,” the Court stated.
The petition, filed by Next Radio Limited, Association of Radio Operators for India, and Ramesh Menon, had sought to strike down Rule 29(4) as unconstitutional, or alternatively have it read as directory rather than mandatory. The petitioners argued that several sub-clauses of the rule—requiring extensive details such as copyright ownership, publication year, and time slots—were unfeasible and not contemplated by Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Section 31D provides a statutory licence framework allowing broadcasters to use literary and musical works and sound recordings without obtaining prior individual licences, provided conditions such as prior notice and royalty payment are met.
Earlier, in April 2022, the Madras High Court had dismissed the challenge, holding that Rule 29(4) did not exceed the scope of Section 31D and did not infringe upon any constitutional rights. The petitioners subsequently approached the Supreme Court by way of SLP [Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14373/2022].
The Union of India and private copyright owners, including Saregama India, PPL, and Sony Music, defended the rule, arguing that the information required under Rule 29(4) was essential for transparency, royalty calculation, and compliance with statutory obligations.
With the petition now withdrawn, the Supreme Court has left the question of Rule 29(4)’s constitutional validity open, and the Madras High Court judgment continues to hold the field unless overturned in future proceedings.
Explore more on these topics