Delhi High Court sets aside Central govt order rejecting re-registration of music rights company PPL

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday set aside an order of the Central government rejecting re-registration application of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL) as a Copyright Society thereby directing the government to reconsider the application in a ‘reasonable time’ [Phonographic Performance Limited v Union of India and Ors].

. Single-judge Justice Yogesh Khanna directed the government to reconsider the application within a ‘reasonable time’.

The Court also set aside the order through which the government granted registration to Recorded Music Performance Limited (RMPL) holding that it was done in violation of the order passed by the court wherein it had granted an ad-interim stay to the PPL.

. PPL is a performance rights organization which licenses sound recordings for communication to the public in the areas of public performance and broadcast. It claims to own public performance rights of more than 350 music labels and to have represented nearly 90 percent of sound recordings ever created in the country.

. The Court was dealing with two petitions filed by the PPL challenging the two orders of the Central government. It was argued that the petitioner was a registered copyright society till the introduction of an amendment in the Copyright Act in 2012 which mandated that every society, already registered, shall get itself registered again within a period of one year.

In May 2013, the PPL filed an application for its re-registration as a copyright society however the Centre did not take a decision on it within the stipulated time of two months but kept it pending for nearly a year.

In May 2014, the petitioner filed a request for the withdrawal of its application with intention to file a fresh application for fresh registration at an appropriate time, but in November 2014, the Centre rejected the request for withdrawal stating that the application was still under consideration.

On May 23, 2021 the PPL finally received an order passed by the government rejecting its application stating that the same stood withdrawn.

The Court was also told that by the order dated June 18, 2021 Centre had granted registration to RMPL.

. The Court has now held that correspondence was exchanged between the PPL and government between January 2018 to October 2019 whereby the petitioner gave details of compliances which showed that government kept the application of re-registration alive all this time and the letters written by the government clarified that it had assured the petitioner of its application not being rejected.

It also rejected the government’s argument that principles of natural justice would not apply to applications for re-registration.

“Thus, the impugned order shows there was sheer non-application of mind by the competent authority in rejecting the application of the petitioner without giving an opportunity of being heard to it. Respondent no.1 rather failed to decide the application on merits and dismissed it on the premise, the petitioner filed a fresh application only in June 2018, which premise is wholly incorrect as the application dated June 2018 was never under, Form IX and rather was a letter given by the petitioner to comply with issues involved. The impugned order is wholly silent qua the correspondences exchanged between petitioner and respondent no.1 and to an Office Memorandum dated 06.10.2016 which rather declared the application was well within time,” read the judgment.

. Referring to the order granting registration to RMPL, the Court said that the government had failed to consider the fact that with the order standing, even if the petitioner’s application gets revived it may not get registration because only one copyright society would be registered for administering the rights relating to same class of work like sound recording.

Therefore, Justice Khanna said that if order rejecting PPL’s application were to be set aside then the order granting registration to RMPL would have to be set aside as a corollary and therefore quashed both the orders.

“ Thus, in view of above, impugned orders dated 25.05.2021 and 18.06.2021 both are set aside. Respondent No.1 is directed to re-consider the application of the petitioner for re-registration on merits, as being filed in time. The respondent No.1 is expected to undertake this whole exercise within a reasonable time and the outcome be communicated to the petitioner,” the Court said.

. Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar and Akhil Sibal along with advocates Ankur Sangal, Saurabh Seth, Sucheta Roy, Asavari Jain, Deboshree Mukherjee and Trisha Nag appeared for the petitioner.

Centre was represented by Central Government Standing Counsel Harish V Shankar and advocates S. Bushra Kazim and Karan Chhibber. Advocate Jagdish Sagar appeared for RMPL.

. [Read Judgment]

Delhi High Court sets aside Central govt order rejecting re-registration of music rights company PPL

Prashant Jha

Related Stories