Supreme Court Stays Calcutta HC Order Holding Unlicensed IPRS Music In Hotels Is Copyright Infringement

Today, the Supreme Court stayed a Calcutta High Court judgment holding that providing cable television connections to individual hotel rooms amounts to “communication to the public” under the Copyright Act, 1957 and constitutes copyright infringement.

A Bench comprising Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli issued notice and stayed the High Court judgment while hearing Hotel Appolo & Tours Private Limited's challenge to the judgment dated 4 August 2026.

Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for Hotel Appolo, submitted that the matter raised an important question: “If you know who a cable operator, which a hotel obviously subscribes to in a television, is on, does that amount to communication for the public and thus requiring a licence from the IPRS?”

The High Court had restrained Hotel Appolo from communicating literary and musical works belonging to members of The Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) to hotel guests through television sets installed in its rooms without obtaining a valid licence from IPRS. It had held that providing cable television connections to individual hotel rooms constitutes “communication to the public” within the meaning of the Copyright Act. The High Court had also set aside an order of the Darjeeling District Judge refusing IPRS interim relief.

Kaul submitted that several judgments dealing with cable networks had treated the person subscribing to the cable service as the person to whom the communication is made. He argued that in the present case, “the hotel itself is the subscriber” and the cable operator, in turn, communicates the television signals to the hotel.

The Bench, however, sought to clarify the precise nature of the dispute and asked whether the hotel, as the subscriber and end consumer, would cease to be the ultimate consumer merely because its guests view the programmes in the hotel rooms.

Kaul referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Hotel and Restaurant Association v. Star India and submitted that the decision was relevant to the issue before the Court. He argued that the judgment relied upon by the other side did not deal with the Supreme Court's decision in Hotel and Restaurant Association, and that that the earlier case concerned a different issue and that reliance on Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act was misplaced.

He explained that Section 52(1)(a) concerns certain uses of copyrighted works in a residential society's common area or banquet hall and submitted that it “does not include hotels, hotel rooms”. He further submitted that the provision could not be used to conclude that anything watched by a guest in a hotel room automatically amounts to communication to the public.

The Bench then asked Kaul, “Where do you from the record get that the hotel, the cable operator, from whom the hotels subscribe has a licence from IPRS?”

The senior counsel responded, “No one disputed that the cable operator has a licence from an IPRS.” He offered to place an affidavit on record if required, submitting that the hotel's case proceeded on the basis that the cable operator had obtained a licence from IPRS.

The Bench emphasised the need to establish that factual position from the record. Kaul reiterated that the cable operator had a licence from IPRS and explained the practical significance of the earlier Supreme Court ruling.

Referring to the earlier tariff dispute involving hotels and broadcasters, Kaul submitted that the hotel association had argued that hotels were neither subscribers nor consumers. He said the dispute ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which held that “the hotel is a consumer in itself” and that viewing by guests amounts to viewing by the hotel itself.

Kaul sought to apply that reasoning to the present copyright dispute, submitting, “I am the consumer. I take the license from my cable operator or I subscribe to a cable operator. My cable operator in turn has a license from the IPRS.”

The Supreme Court thereafter stayed the operation of the High Court judgment and issued notice.