Calcutta High Court Says Vodafone Needs IPRS Licence To Use Songs As Caller Tunes

The Calcutta High Court on Friday held that Vodafone Idea Limited cannot commercially exploit the underlying musical and literary works embedded in sound recordings used for caller tunes and ringtones without obtaining permission from the Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS).

IPRS is a copyright society that manages copyright licences for musical and literary works on behalf of rights holders.

The court said Vodafone's arrangements with sound recording companies such as Saregama India Limited do not defeat IPRS's right to claim royalties.

"Saregama does not have any legal authority or competence to grant licence in respect of underlying musical and literary works incorporated in sound recording of Vodafone for commercial exploitation. Vodafone does not have licence to commercially exploit the underlying contents of sound recording incorporated in the sound recordings without express permission from IPRS", the court held. 

A Division Bench of Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi delivered the ruling on May 8, 2026, dismissing two appeals filed by Vodafone against a Single Judge order that had held IPRS was entitled to independently enforce its rights over the underlying musical and literary works used in Vodafone's caller tune service.

The dispute traces back to 2018, when Vodafone introduced a Value Added Service (VAS) allowing customers to use caller tunes and ringtones. Vodafone had entered into licensing arrangements with Saregama for use of its sound recordings and argued that this discharged its royalty obligations.

When IPRS disagreed, Vodafone filed an interpleader suit asking the court to adjudicate the competing claims of IPRS and Saregama. Saregama filed a separate suit seeking to restrain Vodafone from exploiting copyright in its sound recordings in relation to the VAS.

IPRS also filed its own suit seeking an injunction against Vodafone from authorising public performance or communication of its repertoire of musical and literary works without payment of royalties.

Vodafone's core argument was that after the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, where the owner of a sound recording grants a licence to communicate it to the public, no separate licence is required from the owner of the musical and literary works embodied in it.

IPRS, however, argued that the 2012 amendments fundamentally altered the legal position. It contended that Saregama had already assigned its rights in the underlying musical and literary works to IPRS in 1993 and 2017. Therefore, it could not validly license those rights to Vodafone in later agreements.

The court undertook a detailed analysis of the Copyright Act, 1957, focusing on Sections 13, 18 and 19 as amended in 2012. It held that the amendments protect the separate copyright subsisting in underlying literary and musical works. The court said the authors' right to royalties survives even after those works are incorporated into sound recordings.

“These agreements, do not survive Section 19(10) of the Act of 1957 to the extent, where, it is proposed to construe these agreements to mean a denial of such right of IPRS. ,” the court observed.

Rejecting Vodafone's reliance on pre-2012 precedents, the bench held, “The Amendments to the Act of 1957 incorporated by the Copyright Amendment Act, 2012, have ushered in a paradigm shift in the rights of owners of literary and musical rights.”

The court added: “They are now protected and entitled to receive royalties for the use of their literary and musical works incorporated in the sound recordings.”

The court held that the 2012 amendments allow IPRS to claim royalties when sound recordings are commercially exploited. It also held that Saregama had no legal authority to license the underlying musical and literary works to Vodafone, and that Vodafone could not commercially exploit those works without IPRS's permission.

It held that Saregama has no legal authority or competence to grant Vodafone a licence over the underlying musical and literary works. It held that Vodafone has no licence to commercially exploit those works without express permission from IPRS.

The court also directed that all money deposited with the Joint Special Officers and the Registrar, Original Side, during the pendency of the appeals be released to IPRS upon it furnishing an undertaking to refund the amount if it ultimately fails in the pending suits.

Vodafone's plea for a stay was refused.