In an earlier post, we’d highlighted how an unfortunate grammatical construct led to an order against Delhi University (DU) and Rameshwari Photocopy. While the restraining order was directed effectively only against Rameshwari, the alleged “admissions”/”undertakings” of DU to the affect that they would not commit any infringing acts complained of by the plaintiffs in the suit were recorded in the order.
Aggrieved by this recordal, DU approached an appellate bench of the Delhi High Court consisting of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Manmohan SIngh.
Both are authors of renowned IP judgments, with Justice Nandrajog displaying a fair amount of literary (and philosophical) flair too. Sample his judgment in IPRS v. Aditya Pandey & CRI Events:
“It is but natural that in a song, the words and the music have a special relationship. Words affect the melodic line, even the rhythmic structure. The inflection of the language in the lyrics leaves an imprint on the melody and the rhythm; on style and phrasing. When a song is sung there is a moving romance between the words and the music….
Sadly, in the DU photocopy case, there is, as yet, no moving romance; an unfortunate construction of words resulted in a not so melodic injunction.
While dismissing the appeal as infructuous, Justice Nandrajog and SIngh asked DU to return to the single judge and clarify the scope of their alleged admission/undertaking. I extract the text of the order below:
“1. The tenor of the ad interim order dated October 17, 2012 pending disposal of IA No.14632/2012 filed by respondent No.1 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC would suggest that the same is a consent order.
2. A perusal of the grounds urged in appeal would reveal that the grievance of the appellant pertains to the appellant?s understanding of the consent order and as reflected in the order dated October 17, 2012, i.e., a hiatus between what was intended to be conceded to and what ultimately got reflected.
3. Under the circumstances we feel that the appellant would be advised to move an application before the learned Single Judge who passed the order dated October 17, 2012 clarifying the span of the consent which the appellant intended to convey.
4. Needless to state that if such an application is filed, the learned Single Judge will decide the same as per law and preferably before the ensuing winter vacation for the reason the clarification which the appellant intends to seek relates to its course material and would be directly relatable to the current academic year/session and would affect
the academic studies of the students of the University.
5. So observing the appeal is permitted to be withdrawn without there being any order as to costs.”
And so the battle for access to education continues. Will our students finally see some melody in the law? Or will they continue to face the present music? Only time will tell.
