The High Court of Karnataka on Wednesday refrained from quashing a criminal case against Congress leaders Rahul Gandhi, Jairam Ramesh and Supriya Shrinate over charges of unauthorised use of music from the movie KGF: Chapter 2 during Bharat Jodo Yatra.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna noted that the petitioners tampered with the source code without the permission of the owners, which constituted an offence under the Copyright Act.
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol argued that since there was no intention to infringe the copyrights, the decision to use music from KGF: Chapter 2 could not be considered to be an offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
He added that the petitioners did not attain any monetary benefits as well.
Representing MRT Music, Senior Advocate S. Sriranga contended that irrespective of whether any monetary benefit was obtained or not, the leaders gained popularity.
A First Investigation Report (FIR) was lodged on the basis of a criminal complaint and infringement suit filed by MRT Music.
The complaint pointed out that videos of Bharat Jodo Yatra that were circulated on various social media platforms, which indicated that the accused had used the music of film KGF: Chapter 2 with the intention to make wrongful gain.
Earlier on June 23, the High Court of Karnataka had reserved its orders on the petition after hearing both sides.
Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate Vikram Huilgol had argued that Section 63 of the Copyright Act had a heightened threshold of infringement. He said the question of infringement at large itself was before the civil court and that they had preferred a suit under Section 55.
He pointed out that the onus to show that a person knowingly infringed on a copyright laid on Section 63 of the Act, but there was no mention of that particular Section in the complaint.
Noting that Rahul Gandhi admittedly walked or was portrayed to be walking with the music in the background, the lawyer asked whether being portrayed in a video would amount to Gandhi knowingly infringing a copyright.
Representing complainant M. Naveen Kumar, Senior Advocate S. Sriranga and Advocate Pranav Kumar Mysore alleged that the petitioners-accused had taken the source code, meddled with it and superimposed the video.
He said the Act provided for civil remedy and criminal prosecution, noting that in case of such infringement, the outcome of one did not depend on the outcome of the other, subject to all just exceptions.
On November 7, the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge of Bengaluru had granted an injunction in favour of MRT Music and directed the local commissioner to visit the Congress website to run an electronic record and preserve any material found on their social media that could be considered to be infringement of the copyright.
However, through an appeal, the order was challenged before the High Court on November 8.
The High Court set aside the order and directed Congress to remove any such content from its social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Instagram.