Delhi High Court relief for tech company as Commerce Ministry caught using pirated CCTV software

The Delhi High Court recently granted interim relief to a tech company that found that pirated and unauthorised CCTV and surveillance software was installed and used at the Union Ministry of Commerce and Industry headquarters at Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. (X v. Ashok Kumar)

Justice Tejas Karia observed that “as there is no purchase order of the software from the Plaintiff, for installing the same at the Project Site and that the software found at the Project Site was licensed by the Plaintiff for a different site, the software installed at the Project Site is prima facie a pirated and unauthorized copy.”

The project site referred to in the order is Udyog Bhawan.

The order was passed in a commercial suit alleging large-scale software piracy, copyright infringement and licence misuse involving proprietary CCTV and AI-based video management software used for surveillance and security systems. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry was arrayed as Defendant No. 6, with Telecommunications Consultants India Limited (TCIL) impleaded as Defendant No. 5, in view of the location and administration of the project site.

According to the pleadings recorded by the Court, the alleged piracy came to light in May 2025 after TCIL raised a telephonic complaint regarding malfunctioning surveillance software at Udyog Bhawan. Following this, a technical inspection was carried out at the project site.

The inspection revealed multiple irregularities, including that the software deployed at the Commerce Ministry premises was licensed for an entirely different private project location in Gurugram. The Court noted that the unique MAC-bound licence identifiers - mandatorily tied to specific authorised systems - did not authenticate with the hardware on which the software was running at Udyog Bhawan.

The Court also recorded that the software maintenance agreement had expired nearly five years earlier, yet the system continued to operate. It further noted that metadata showed credentials linked to a former employee were still being used, reinforcing the allegation of unauthorised deployment.

Significantly, the Court found that no purchase order or procurement record existed either in the plaintiff’s database or in TCIL’s records authorising installation of the software at the Commerce Ministry site. TCIL later informed the plaintiff that the software-related work at the project site had been outsourced to a backend vendor.

The plaintiff alleged that despite repeated emails, follow-ups and meetings - including communications addressed to the board of TCIL - no remedial steps were taken for several weeks. It was further alleged that assurances were given regarding registration of an FIR, procurement of valid licences and compensation for past usage, but these were not acted upon.

After considering the material placed on record, Justice Karia held that there was a strong prima facie case and noted the public interest implications of the matter. The Court observed that “there is a significant public interest involved in restraining Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 as the software is installed in security systems for surveillance and any piration or unauthorised selling of the software may severely impair the security system in which it is employed, thereby compromising the security and well-being of the members of the public.”

The Court further held that “irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is not granted and balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and against Defendant Nos. 1 to 4.”

Accordingly, the High Court restrained the private defendants from reproducing, copying, installing, distributing, using or otherwise dealing in any pirated or unlicensed copies of the CCTV and surveillance software.

To ensure effective enforcement, the Court appointed local commissioners to visit the premises of the private defendants, inspect and seize computer systems, servers, storage devices, installation logs, licence documentation and other material evidencing unauthorised use. The commissioners have been granted liberty to seek police assistance and break open locks if access is denied.

The remit of these commissioners were extended twice.

The plaintiff company was represented by Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar and Advocates Prabhu Tandon, Kripa Pandit, Avijit Sharma and Pranjali Arya.