Summary
In the case of Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee and Anr. v. Galactic Television and Communications Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., the Delhi High Court considered a dispute over the rebroadcast of Gurbani Kirtan streamed from Sri Harmandir Sahib, the Golden Temple, at Amritsar. The plaintiffs claimed broadcast reproduction rights over the stream and sought an immediate injunction against its rebroadcast. The defendants relied on the Copyright Act provisions concerning religious ceremonies and free broadcasts, and the Court found prima facie merit in their response. It therefore declined to grant an ad interim injunction at that stage.
Background
Gurbani Kirtan Rebroadcast Dispute
This case relates to the rebroadcast of Gurbani Kirtan from Sri Harmandir Sahib, popularly known as the Golden Temple, at Amritsar.
The plaintiffs approached the Delhi High Court alleging that the defendants were carrying the Gurbani Kirtan broadcast on their television channel on a live or deferred live basis. According to the plaintiffs, the authorised video stream was being made available through the first plaintiff’s YouTube channel, and the defendants had no licence to rebroadcast it.
The dispute therefore did not concern whether Gurbani could be performed or communicated as a religious work in the abstract. It arose from the video stream originating from the Golden Temple and the defendants’ act of taking that broadcast and carrying it on their television channel.
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from broadcasting or rebroadcasting the Gurbani Kirtan video stream. Pending the suit, they also asked the Court for an immediate injunction against recording, reproducing, broadcasting, retransmitting, uploading, streaming, or otherwise communicating the live or recorded Gurbani stream.
This brought two parts of the Copyright Act into direct contest at the interim stage. The plaintiffs relied on the broadcast reproduction right under Section 37. The defendants relied principally on Section 52(1)(za), which they said protected communication of literary or musical works in the course of a bona fide religious ceremony. They also relied on the nature of a broadcast made available to the public free of charge.
Questions Before the Court
- Whether the defendants’ rebroadcast of the Gurbani Kirtan stream from the Golden Temple prima facie infringed the plaintiffs’ broadcast reproduction rights under Section 37 of the Copyright Act.
- Whether the defendants could rely on Section 52(1)(za) on the ground that the Gurbani Kirtan was a literary or musical work communicated in connection with a bona fide religious ceremony.
- Whether the fact that the defendants did not charge the public for viewing the rebroadcast affected the plaintiffs’ claim under Section 37.
- Whether the plaintiffs had made out a case for an immediate injunction restraining the rebroadcast.
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Plaintiffs
The plaintiffs argued that:
- The defendants were carrying the Gurbani Kirtan stream from the Golden Temple on their television channel without authorisation.
- The rebroadcast infringed the broadcast reproduction rights available under Section 37 of the Copyright Act.
- The defendants could not rely on fair dealing or the exceptions under Section 52 because their conduct did not fall within those provisions.
- No broadcasting licence had been granted to the defendants.
Defendants
The defendants responded that:
- Section 52(1)(za) treated communication to the public of a literary or musical work for a bona fide religious ceremony as non infringing.
- The rebroadcast of Gurbani was, according to them, a rebroadcast of a literary or musical work and came within that provision.
- Members of the public were not charged anything for viewing the rebroadcast.
- The plaintiffs’ logo appearing on the broadcast was not concealed.
- Section 37(3)(b) was also relevant because, according to the defendants, its wording supported their case concerning broadcasts made available to the public free of charge.
The defendants also relied on statements said to have been made by the first plaintiff in other proceedings and publicly available statements, where it had expressed an intention that Gurbani Kirtan from Sri Harmandir Sahib should reach as many people as possible across the world, whether Sikh or non Sikh.
Court’s Analysis of the Religious Ceremony Defence
The Court dealt with the matter only at the preliminary stage and did not finally determine the scope of the parties’ rights.
After hearing both sides, the Court considered Section 37(3)(b) together with Section 52(1)(za), and also referred to Section 52(1)(l) of the Copyright Act.
The defendants’ principal case rested on the character of Gurbani Kirtan as a literary or musical work connected with a religious ceremony and on the fact that their rebroadcast was available to viewers without charge. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, based their claim on the separate statutory protection granted to broadcasts and argued that the Section 52 exceptions did not cover what the defendants were doing.
At this stage, the Court did not choose between these competing interpretations finally. Instead, it recorded that, on a preliminary appreciation of the matter and on a reading of Section 37(3)(b), Section 52(1)(za), and Section 52(1)(l), there was prima facie merit in the defendants’ response.
That conclusion decided the immediate injunction application for the time being. Since the defendants had shown a prima facie answer to the infringement claim, the Court was not inclined to restrain the rebroadcast before receiving their formal reply and considering the matter further.
The Court directed the defendants to file their reply and left the matter for further consideration. It also kept open the defendants’ separate objection that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction.
Findings
The findings of the Court are as follows:
- The defendants’ response based on Section 37(3)(b), read with Section 52(1)(za) and Section 52(1)(l), had prima facie merit.
- The plaintiffs were not granted an ad interim injunction against the rebroadcast of the Gurbani Kirtan stream at that stage.
- The defendants were directed to file their reply to the interim application within three weeks.
- The plaintiffs were permitted to file a rejoinder before the next date.
- The objection concerning territorial jurisdiction was kept open for later consideration.
- The matter was directed to be listed again on 23 September 2026.
Relevant Paras
Paragraph 35
“As regards the merits of the matter, Mr. Patwalia, has drawn attention of this court to section 52(1)(za) of the Copyright Act, to argue that communication to the public of a literary and/or musical work for a bona fide religious ceremony does not amount to infringement of copyright/broadcast reproduction rights; and that the re-broadcast of Gurbani amounts to re-broadcast of a literary and/or musical work.”
Paragraph 36
“Mr. Patwalia further submits, that the defendants do not charge anything to the public for viewing their re-broadcast in any manner; and moreover, the defendants also do not conceal plaintiff No. 1’s logo that appears in the broadcast.”
Paragraph 37
“Mr. Patwalia also points-out that the phrasing of section 37(3)(b) of the Copyright Act also implies that a broadcast made to the public free of charge, is in any case not included within the definition of broadcast reproduction rights under that provision.”
Paragraph 40
“On a preliminary appreciation of the matter, based on the submissions made on behalf of the parties, arising from section 37(3)(b) read with section 52(1)(za) as also on a reading of section 52(1)(l), this court finds prima-facie merit in the response given by the defendants.”
Paragraph 41
“In view thereof this court is not inclined to pass any ad-interim order at this stage.”
Case Citation
Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee and Anr. v. Galactic Television and Communications Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., CS(COMM) 883/2026, Delhi High Court, order dated 14 August 2026, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/14881493/, accessed 28 August 2026. Indian Kanoon case page
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog based on user inputs and prompts. Views are personal.