R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films and Ors.
Does the film New Delhi copy the play Hum Hindustani, or is it only a shared idea?
Quick Summary
The playwright of Hum Hindustani said the film New Delhi copied his work. The Supreme Court held: ideas are free; expression is protected. Both works drew from a similar idea, but the film’s treatment, scenes, and details were different. So, there was no copyright infringement.
Issues
- Is the film New Delhi an infringement of the play Hum Hindustani?
- Did the producers/distributors/exhibitors of the film infringe the plaintiff’s copyright?
Rules
- Idea–Expression Dichotomy: copyright protects original expression, not mere ideas, subjects, themes, plots, or facts.
- Ordinary Observer Test: if an average viewer gets the clear impression of copying, infringement may be found.
- Similarity of general idea is not enough; there must be substantial similarity in expression (scenes, sequence, incidents, dialogue).
Facts (Timeline)
view1953: R.G. Anand writes the stage play Hum Hindustani after its success considers a film version.
1954: Director Mohan Sehgal shows interest by letter; they discuss the play in detail.
Later: No commitment follows; a film titled New Delhi releases. The playwright believes it follows his plot.
Suits & Appeals: Plaintiff seeks injunction and damages. Trial Court and High Court rule against him on facts; case reaches the Supreme Court.
Arguments
Appellant (Plaintiff)
- The film New Delhi adopted the plot of Hum Hindustani.
- Meetings and discussion show access; similarities show copying.
- Sought injunction and damages for infringement.
Respondents (Producers & Ors.)
- Only a broad idea is common; expression is different.
- Scenes, sequence, characters, and treatment are original.
- Ordinary viewer would not find a copy.
Judgment
No InfringementThe Supreme Court upheld the lower courts. It found only a negligible similarity at the level of idea. The contexts and execution were significantly different. Therefore, no breach of copyright.
- Ideas, themes, and plots are free for all; protection lies in expression.
- Use the ordinary observer test to judge overall impression.
Ratio Decidendi
Copyright protects original expression, not the underlying idea. Similarity in the general idea or theme is not enough; there must be substantial similarity in the form of expression such that an ordinary person would conclude one work is a copy of the other.
Why It Matters
- Key Indian authority on idea–expression in creative works.
- Guides film, theatre, and OTT disputes on “similar plot” claims.
- Encourages originality in treatment, not monopoly over general ideas.
Key Takeaways
- Ideas/themes are public; expression is private.
- Ask: Would an ordinary person see a copy overall?
- Access + similarity ≠ infringement unless expression overlaps.
- Protect scripts through drafts, registrations, contracts.
- Record differences in scenes, sequence, and details.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
IDEA ≠ EXPRESSION — Idea is free, Details are guarded, Expression is key, Average viewer decides.
- Spot: Are we comparing ideas or expression?
- Scan: Look at scenes, sequence, incidents, dialogue.
- Say: Would an ordinary viewer think it’s a copy?
IRAC Outline
Issue
Did New Delhi infringe Hum Hindustani?
Rule
Protects expression, not ideas; ordinary observer test applies.
Application
Only a broad idea was common; execution and details differed.
Conclusion
No infringement; appeals of plaintiff fail.
Glossary
| Term | Simple Meaning |
|---|---|
| Idea–Expression Dichotomy | Law protects your unique way of writing/filming, not the general idea. |
| Ordinary Observer Test | Would a normal viewer feel one work is a copy of the other? |
| Substantial Similarity | Similarity in protected expression, not just in broad themes. |
| Injunction | Court order to stop someone from doing something. |
FAQs
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now