Author: Sourya Veer Pratap Deo, Xavier Institute of Management
TO THE POINT
In 2012, three major academic publishers (Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Taylor & Francis) sued Delhi University and a campus-based shop (Rameshwari Photocopy Service) for selling “course packs” containing photocopied excerpts from textbooks
The dispute centered on Section 52 of the Indian Copyright Act, which provides fair-dealing exceptions for educational use. The publishers argued the packs infringed copyright; the defenders argued they were protected as instruction materials.
In 2016 the Delhi High Court ruled that compiling and selling these course packs was covered by the education exception. The court interpreted “teacher” to include the university, and “in the course of instruction” to cover the entire academic term, not just a single lecture.
The court also examined the facts: the packs on average used only ~8.8% of each book and were sold at just 40–50 paise (about US$0.01) per page. It found that such limited copying for a fee did not substitute for textbook sales or harm the publishers’ market.
Practically, the court decided no special license fee was owed: the copying fell under Section 52, so it was not infringement. The publishers withdrew the suit in 2017, and when the Indian Reprographic Rights Organization appealed, the Supreme Court dismissed it.
The outcome is celebrated for prioritizing students’ access to education while still acknowledging copyright. It has influenced how universities provide materials (e.g. negotiating digital licensing consortia) and how courts apply fair dealing in India.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
Copyright infringement: Unauthorized copying of protected content. The publishers claimed the photocopied course packs were infringing their book copyrights.
Plaintiff / Defendant: In this case, the plaintiffs were the publishers (OUP, Cambridge, T&F) who brought the lawsuit; the defendants were the Rameshwari Photocopy shop and Delhi University.
Injunction: A court order to stop someone from doing something. Here, the court first issued a temporary injunction in 2012 to halt sale of the course packs, which was later lifted in 2016.
Fair dealing (India): A statutory exemption in Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 allowing limited copying for education, research, criticism, etc. If a use falls under fair dealing, it is not an infringement.
Section 52: The part of Indian law listing acts that do not infringe copyright. Important clauses include:
52(1)(i): Duplication of any work by a teacher or student during instruction.
52(1)(h): Copying in answers to exam questions (limited to two short passages from any work).
52(1)(a): Copying for private or personal use (e.g. a student’s own notes). In this case, the court focused on 52(1)(i), finding course packs were protected under it.
Reproduction vs Publication: Reproduction means making a copy (like photocopying for students). Publication means distributing to the public, usually with a profit motive. The Delhi High Court clarified that giving copies to an enrolled class is reproduction for instruction (allowed), not a profit-driven publication.
Course pack: A reader assembled by instructors, containing selected book chapters or articles for a course. Normally copyrighted material but used in limited form under educational exception.
Educational license: A paid permission from publishers to use their content. The plaintiffs wanted DU to pay for licensing. The court held no additional license was needed here, as Section 52 already permitted the copying.
THE PROOF
Statutory exception: Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act explicitly exempts “the reproduction of any work by a teacher or a pupil in the course of instruction” from infringement.
High Court’s reading: The court interpreted “teacher” broadly to include the university itself, and “in the course of instruction” to cover copying done throughout an entire course curriculum. This meant photocopying for class assignments was squarely within the law.
Actual usage: Examining the course packs, the court found only about 8.8% of each source book was photocopied on average. Since those books retailed at roughly ₹2,500 (about $39), and the packs were sold at only 40 paise (₹0.40) per page, the volume and pricing were very limited.
Market effect: The publishers claimed the copying competed with their textbook sales. The court disagreed. It reasoned that most students could not afford every required textbook and would either rely on the library or skip reading. Therefore, the course packs actually aided access without significantly denting the market.
Fairness criteria: The judges emphasized the purpose of the copying (education) as the key factor. They cited foreign case law to note that the “fair use” or “fair dealing” assessment should hinge on the justification by purpose, not on strict quantitative tests.
No license needed: Because the activity fell under Section 52, the court held Delhi University did not need to pay the publishers a license fee for this copying. The educational exception itself authorized the reproductions.
Case resolution: After this ruling, the publishers withdrew their lawsuit in March 2017, as they no longer wished to pursue further litigation. The Indian Reprographic Rights Organization then appealed to the Supreme Court, but on 9 May 2017 the appeal was summarily dismissed. As a result, the Delhi High Court’s interpretation remains as a legal precedent.
ABSTRACT
The “Delhi University Photocopy Case” was a high-profile copyright dispute over whether university course-packs – compilations of photocopied textbook excerpts – required permission from publishers. This article explains that in 2016 the Delhi High Court held these course-packs were protected by India’s educational exception (Section 52(1)(i) of the Copyright Act). The court reasoned that university-approved copying for teaching is not infringement, given its purpose and limited scope. We outline the case’s background (the 2012 lawsuit by Oxford/CUP/T&F vs. Rameshwari Photocopy and DU), the arguments on both sides, and the court’s reasoning. We then cover subsequent events: the publishers withdrew the suit, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. Finally, we discuss the broader impact: how this ruling has informed Indian copyright law and educational practice. For example, commentators have called the outcome a “triumph for access”, and major publishers now offer content through government-led licensing consortia (like E-Shod Sindhu) reflecting the case’s lessons.
CASE LAWS
Oxford University Press & Ors. v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Ors. (DU Photocopy case), Delhi HC (9 Dec 2016) – A division bench (Justice Nandrajog) held that course-pack photocopying for students fell squarely under Section 52(1)(i). The judges ruled that copying prescribed readings for classes was non-infringing “in the course of instruction”.
Oxford Univ. Press & Ors. v. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Ors., Delhi HC (16 Sep 2016) – Prior to the above, a single-judge (Justice Endlaw) had dismissed the publishers’ suit, similarly finding no infringement. That decision was later set aside by the division bench on procedural grounds.
Indian Reprographic Rights Org. (IRRO) v. University of Delhi, Supreme Court (2017) – After the main plaintiffs withdrew the case, IRRO – a copyright society – appealed the High Court judgment. On 9 May 2017 the Supreme Court summarily dismissed the appeal, effectively leaving the Delhi HC ruling in effect.
CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, SCC (2004) – Cited in the DU case, this Canadian Supreme Court decision emphasized that fair dealing (fair use) is a user’s right and must be interpreted liberally. The Delhi HC echoed its view that fair use should be “read into” the law unless expressly excluded.
Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), SCC (2012) – A Canadian case allowing teachers to distribute photocopied readings to students under fair dealing. Quoted in the DU judgment, it provided an international analogy that favored broad educational copying.
CONCLUSION
The Delhi University photocopy judgment is now regarded as a landmark affirmation of the balance between copyright and education in India. By interpreting Section 52 broadly in favor of instruction, the court allowed universities to legally provide low-cost study materials to students. This recognized the real-world need: Indian students pay a large share of their income for foreign textbooks, and course-packs help bridge that gap. The ruling focused on why the copying was done – for teaching – rather than imposing strict numerical limits.
In practical terms, after this decision universities could continue making and selling course-packs without fear of infringement, and without needing to pay extra license fees. In the longer term, publishers and policy makers adapted by negotiating new access models. For example, by 2024 Oxford and Taylor & Francis signed multi-crore agreements with a government-funded digital library (E-ShodhSindhu) to provide online access to their books. In effect, these deals realize some compensation for publishers while respecting the educational exception.
Supporters of the Delhi HC ruling call it a “huge triumph” for access to knowledge. Critics worry about lost revenues to authors, but the case plainly reflects India’s educational priorities. Importantly, the DU Photocopy case set a precedent that fair dealing will be given a generous reading in India, especially where public interest in education is strong. It continues to shape debates on copyright reform, publishing practices, and how India’s legal system supports learning in the digital age.
FAQS
Q: What was the Delhi University Photocopy case about?
A: In 2012, Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Taylor & Francis filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Delhi University and a local photocopying business, Rameshwari Photocopy Service.. They alleged that selling photocopied course packs of excerpts from their textbooks infringed copyright. The legal question was whether this copying was allowed under the education exception in India’s law. The Delhi High Court ultimately upheld the legality of the practice.
Q: What did the Delhi High Court decide?
A: The High Court (2016) ruled that preparing and selling these course packs was not infringement. It held that photocopying by teachers and students for classroom use falls under Section 52(1)(i) (the education exception). In everyday terms, copying limited textbook excerpts for use in a course, at a low price, was deemed a fair use for teaching.
Q: Did the Supreme Court make a ruling on the core issue?
A: No final judgment came from the Supreme Court on the merits. After the High Court’s decision, the publishers chose to withdraw their case (2017). The Indian Reprographic Rights Organization then appealed, but the Supreme Court summarily dismissed the appeal on 9 May 2017. This effectively left the Delhi High Court’s interpretation in place as guidance.
Q: Does this mean all classroom copying is automatically legal?
A: Not necessarily. The ruling applied specifically to course packs assembled by instructors for students. The court stressed that the purpose (education) and limited scope of the copying were key. Copying done purely for private profit or copying entire books might not be protected. However, the case does give universities confidence that modest photocopying of assigned readings for courses is legally safe under current law.
Q: What is Section 52 of the Copyright Act?
A: Section 52 of the Copyright Act lists exceptions that do not count as infringement. Important parts include:
52(1)(i): Copies made by a teacher or student “in the course of instruction” are allowed.
52(1)(h): Copying up to two short passages for exam answers.
52(1)(a): Copying for private or personal use.
In this case, the court focused on 52(1)(i), finding that the photocopying for course packs fell under that exception, so no license was needed.
Q: Why is this case important?
A: It clarified that India’s education exception is strong. The decision has been hailed as a win for students and educators, ensuring affordable access to learning materials. It also influenced how universities and publishers work together: for example, it prompted collective licensing agreements so that students can legally access more content without violating copyright. In sum, the case is often cited in discussions about copyright reform and the right balance between public interest and rights holders.
