Playing music at social events such as weddings, parties, and corporate gatherings is common practice. However, the nature and character of the event may determine whether a licence is required for the playing or performing the copyrighted music.
While a copyright license is essential under the scheme of the Act, there are certain built-in exceptions, one of which pertains to marriage ceremonies and religious social festivities related to it as provided under Section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (“the Act”). However, this exception is not absolute.
In fact, there have been attempts by different public authorities, including in recent times, to interpret the said exception under the Act. However, the courts have struck down such public notices and circulars in the past. This issue can be traced back to the year 2011, to an order issued by the Additional Director General of Police, Punjab, directing the state police not to insist on such public performance licences for DJ performances at wedding functions, effectively treating such events as falling outside the licensing requirement. This order was challenged by Phonographic Performance Limited (‘PPL’), an assignee of public performance rights, in PPL v. State of Punjab. The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the view that DJ-played sound recordings at wedding festivities automatically enjoy the protection of Section 52(1)(za), and observed “the tariff regime applies to performances at such functions even if it has a religious overtone.”
Similarly, another such instance relating to a public notice dated September 27, 2019, issued by the Registrar of Copyrights under the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (“DPIIT”) interpreting the scope of Section 52(1)(za) was struck down in Novex Communications v. Union of India by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The Court held that the Registrar lacked the authority to interpret the statute or to declare that no licence was required for any marriage-related functions. It further held that the ambit of Section 52(1)(za) and the fair-use considerations under Section 52(1), must be assessed case-by-case, considering factors such as any underlying commercial purpose/intent and whether admission fees were charged for the event. It was further clarified that the issued notice violated the principle of separation of powers, since executive notices cannot curtail statutory or constitutional rights of copyright owners or replace judicial determination of the applicability of the exception.
Subsequently, on July 24, 2023, the Central government, through DPIIT, issued another circular clarifying the scope of this exception. Relying on this, Goa’s Home Department issued a circular dated January 30, 2024 directing that performances at religious ceremonies, including weddings, do not constitute infringement, directing that hotels and copyright societies should not insist on licences or NOCs, and instructing the police to take “strict action” against royalty demands. This circular was challenged in the case of PPL v. State of Goa, where the Bombay High Court held that Section 52(1)(za) is a statutory exception whose applicability must be determined on a case-by-case basis, and that a plea of non-infringement under the provision constitutes an exceptional defence. The Court found that the impugned circular impermissibly expanded the scope of Section 52(1)(za), unlawfully fettering the rights of copyright societies, and interfered with the enforcement mechanism under the Act, holding that such determinations cannot be pre-emptively made through executive circulars and accordingly quashed the circular.
Furthermore, in Ten Events & Entertainment Pvt Ltd v. Novex Communications Pvt Ltd, the Delhi High Court considered a case where an event management company, organising high-end destination weddings, had invoked Section 52(1)(za) for seeking a declaratory exemption from any licensing requirements for such events. The company challenged demands made by Novex, PPL and the Indian Performing Rights Society for licences to publicly perform copyrighted music at wedding events. The Delhi High Court rejected this approach, holding that Section 52(1)(za) does not confer any enforceable substantive right and operates only as a defensive exception to infringement. Relying on Warner Bros v. Santosh V.G. and K.T. Plantation v. State of Karnataka, it held that statutory exceptions create only “negative rights” and cannot be used to obtain advance declarations of non-liability. The Delhi High Court also construed Section 60 of the Act narrowly, holding that “Section 60 of the Copyright Act applies only in respect of threats of liability and legal proceedings held out in respect of acts of alleged infringement of copyright which already stand committed."
Further, on the scope of Section 52(1)(za), the Delhi High Court held that while marriage processions and related social festivities fall within the ‘religious ceremonies’ under the Act, the exemption is subject to bona fides and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering the nature of the event and existence of any profit-making or commercial intent. The Delhi High Court also made a reference to the case of Devendrakumar Ramchandra Dwivedi v. State of Gujarat which arose in the context of commercial Navratri/garba events wherein it was observed that the said exception may not extend to profit-oriented performances. However, Delhi High Court left open the question of whether lavish, commercially organised destination weddings would fall under this exception. The Court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to obtain an omnibus declaration and declined declaratory relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
Section 52(1)(za) creates a broad exception under which the performance of copyrighted music at certain events does not require a licence. However, its wide ambit also renders it vulnerable to misuse by persons seeking to cloak commercial performances under the garb of marriages or religious ceremonies, potentially undermining the revenue framework on which artists, composers, singers and musicians depend. Courts have therefore consistently emphasised the requirement of bona fides including, whether the event carries any underlying commercial or profit-making intent. Judicial interpretation has further settled that Section 52(1)(za) operates only as a defence to an infringement claim and not as a basis for seeking omnibus or all-encompassing declaratory relief, with the Delhi High Court characterising the provision as a “shield” rather than a “sword.”
By insisting on a case-by-case factual assessment, courts have sought to balance the legislative intent behind Section 52(1)(za) with the need to safeguard legitimate copyright interests, ensuring that the provision functions as a purpose-driven exception rather than a loophole.
About the authors: Aditya Ganju is a Partner and Samanyu Sethi is an Associate at AG Chambers.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors. The opinions presented do not necessarily reflect the views of Bar & Bench.
If you would like your Deals, Columns, Press Releases to be published on Bar & Bench, please fill in the form available here.