Supreme Court of India | (1978) 4 SCC 118
Background
The appellant, R.G. Anand, was the author of a stage play titled Hum Hindustani, which dealt with issues of social integration and regional prejudice. The respondents later produced a Hindi feature film that, according to the appellant, was substantially similar to his play. Alleging that the film was an unauthorised copy of his dramatic work, the appellant filed a suit claiming copyright infringement.
The dispute required the Court to examine whether similarities between the play and the film were sufficient to establish infringement, and more fundamentally, the extent to which copyright protects ideas, themes, and plots.
Issues for Determination
• Whether copyright protection extends to ideas, themes, and plots, or only to their expression
• Whether the similarities between the appellant’s play and the respondents’ film amounted to copyright infringement
• What test should be applied to determine substantial similarity in copyright cases
Key Holding of the Court
The Supreme Court held that copyright does not protect ideas, subject matter, themes, or plots. It protects only the manner in which those ideas are expressed. Even if two works are based on the same idea, there is no infringement unless the expression of that idea is substantially similar.The Court laid down that the proper test is whether an average viewer, after seeing or reading both works, forms a clear and unmistakable impression that the later work is a copy of the earlier one. If the similarities relate only to the central idea and not to the form of expression, no infringement is made out.The Court also clarified that similarities arising naturally from a common theme do not amount to copying.
Statutory Provisions Involved
• Copyright Act, 1957
• Provisions relating to infringement of copyright in literary and dramatic works
Doctrinal Significance
This judgment is the cornerstone of Indian copyright law on the idea–expression dichotomy. It authoritatively settled that copyright law protects expression and not ideas, ensuring that creative freedom is not stifled.
The case continues to guide courts in disputes involving films, scripts, books, and other creative works, and it forms the foundation for assessing substantial similarity in infringement cases.