Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR Over Cable Operators, Says Spillover Beyond Area Is Regulatory Dispute

The Gujarat High Court on 24 September quashed an FIR against cable operators accused of transmitting Zee and Turner pay channels beyond their licensed area, holding that the dispute concerned regulatory and commercial conditions rather than criminal copyright infringement.

Justice P. M. Raval held that transmitting cable signals across regulatory boundaries created under administrative and telecom regulations did not, by itself, constitute a criminal offence under the Copyright Act, 1957. The Bench observed:

“re-transmitting a signal across such a border amounts to a breach of regulatory conditions or a breach of contract, governed by the Cable TV Act and civil remedies, rather than criminal piracy under the Copyright Act.”

The FIR was registered at Kamrej Police Station, Surat, in December 2014 on a complaint by an IPR consultant representing Taj Television (India) Pvt. Ltd., which distributes Zee and Turner channels.

It invoked Sections 63, 65 and 69 of the Copyright Act, 1957. It alleged that Dev Shree Cable Network was licensed to broadcast only in Surat city, while Shivam Cable Network took a connection from Dev Shree and transmitted the channels to Kathor village, outside the licensed area.

The consultant claimed that he stayed at a hotel in Kathor and recorded the channels on his phone. These included Cartoon Network, HBO, CNN International, Zee Cinema and Ten Cricket. The cable operators argued that the alleged transmission beyond the licensed area amounted to a breach of cable and telecom regulations, not copyright infringement.

The Court noted that the distinction between areas with digital addressable cable systems and those without them “is not a creation of the Copyright Act, 1957.” It said the distinction arose from administrative notifications under the Cable Act and guidelines issued by the telecom regulator.

It also held that Section 63 requires knowing infringement and that the prosecution had to establish more than a breach of territorial broadcasting conditions. It observed that “an element of deliberate signal theft, counterfeiting, or completely unauthorized piracy.”

Further, the Bench noted that the parties had a commercial relationship and that the broadcaster received subscription fees from the operators. It held that the dispute over whether the signal remained within Surat or extended to a nearby village did not establish the criminal intent required under the Copyright Act.

It described the use of criminal copyright law to address the territorial spillover dispute as “an abuse of the judicial process.”

Accordingly, the High Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it.