B. N Firos Vs State of Kerala & Ors.

Court: The Supreme Court of India

Case No: Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2008

Citation: B.N. Firos v. State of Kerala, (2018) 9 SCC 220

Date of Judgement: 27th March, 2018

Appellant: B.N Firos

Respondent: State of Kerala & Ors.

Bench: Ranjan Gogoi and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, JJ.

Advocates of Appellants: R. Basant, Sr. Adv., A. Karthik and V.K. Sidharthan, Advs.

Advocates of Respondents: Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv., G. Prakash, Jishnu M.L., Priyanka Prakash, Beena Prakash, Vijay Shankar V.L., P.V. Dinesh, Avani Bansal, Sindhu T.P., Arushi Singh, Bineesh Karat and Rajendra Beniwal, Advs.

Statutes:

1. Provisions of S. 17 of the Copyright Act and S. 70 of the Information Technology Act.
2. S. 70 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
3. Provisions of Copyright Act and S. 70 of Information Technology Act.
4. Section 2(k) of the Copyright Act.
5. S. 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963).
6. S. 70 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
7. Section 17 (d) of the Copyright Act.
8. Sections 60 and 61 of the Copyright Act.

Cases Referred:

1. Jogendra Lal Saha v. State of Bihar and Ors.
2. Kumari Kanaka v. Sundararajan
3. Manojah Cine Productions v. Sundaresan
4. Nav Sahitya Prakash v. Anand Kumar

Issue:

1. Whether the governments can declare any ‘government work’, as within the ambit of The Copyright Act, 1957, to be a ‘protected system’ under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. Whether Section 70 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was rightly interpreted or not.

Facts:

1. As part of its IT implementation in government ministries, the Kerala government devised the “FRIENDS” project idea (Fast, Reliable, Instant, Efficient Network for Disbursement of Services). The project entails the creation of software for the single-window collection of bills payable to the government, local governments, various statutory agencies, government corporations, and other entities for tax, fees, and other charges.
2. The fourth respondent was entrusted with building the “FRIENDS” software by the first respondent Kerala State Government. As the Total Solution Provider, the fourth respondent is a registered society under the jurisdiction of the government (TSP). The petitioner was then entrusted with the task of developing a pilot project to be set up in Thiruvananthapuram by the fourth respondent.
3. The free application software “FRIENDS” was originally built in Thiruvananthapuram, and after the project’s success, the government decided to replicate it in all 13 district centres. By Ext.P6, the petitioner entered into a contract with the fourth respondent to instal and commission the “FRIENDS” software system in 13 locations throughout Kerala to provide integrated services to the public.
4. For a total consideration of Rs. 13 lakhs, the fourth respondent entered into a contract with the petitioner to set up and commission the “FRIENDS” software system at 13 centres throughout Kerala in order to provide integrated services to customers through a single window.
5. The petitioner established FRIENDS service centres in each of the 13 centres and gave them the agreed-upon remuneration. Following the effective completion of the project, the fourth respondent and the petitioner reached an agreement.
6. Concerns over Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in the software produced, namely FRIENDS, arose between the petitioner and the government.

Arguments by Appellant:

1. The petitioner’s principal argument is that the computer programme “FRIENDS” is a literary work as defined by Section 2(o) of the Copyright Act, and that he, as its developer, is the author as defined by Section 2(d)(vi), and so is entitled to copyright registration. According to him, his application for registration is currently being rejected due to the pending civil suit.
2. According to the petitioner, Section 70 of the Act, which gives the State Government unrestricted authority to declare any computer system a protected system, is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and incompatible with the Copyright Act, and Section 70 of the Act should be deemed illegal.

Arguments by Respondent:

1. According to the responses, the fourth respondent promised to develop the programme for free.
2. It was also noted that the respondents dutifully reimbursed the appellant for the work he performed.
3. According to the respondents, they were the first owner of the programme because they provided the essential assistance and infrastructure for its deployment.

Obiter Dicta:

1. The Court states that the Appellant cannot claim any rights over the above said software since it was developed under a Contract.
2. Since the Respondent had shouldered the responsibility of this project it would be considered as a ‘protected system’.

Judgment:

1. The Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of section 70(1) of the Information Technology Act in reaching its decision, noting that the government can only declare systems “protected” if they are critical to the state’s operation, and the software in question fits the bill, according to the Learned Judge.
2. The court noted that because the parties were bound by the Memorandum of Understanding, the appellants could not claim to be the original owners when considering whether the Kerala government’s announcement declaring the “disputed software” protected was invalid in law. The appellants cannot be regarded as the first owners, according to the judges, because the programme was developed for/with Microsoft Corporation.
3. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and dismissed the case.