Supreme Court Stays Calcutta HC Ruling That Hotel Cable TV Constitutes Copyright Infringement
- Kaustav Chowdhury
- Aug 21
- 4 min read
On August 20, 2026, a bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices KV Viswanathan and Arun Palli stayed a Calcutta High Court judgment dated August 4, 2026, which had held that hotels providing cable television in guest rooms are engaged in "communication to the public" under the Copyright Act, 1957, and must therefore obtain a separate copyright licence from the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS). The stay was granted while hearing a special leave petition filed by Hotel Appolo and Tours Private Limited challenging the High Court's ruling. The Supreme Court's intervention has significant implications for the hospitality industry across India, where the question of whether a cable TV connection in a hotel room triggers a separate copyright obligation has long been a contested issue.
The Calcutta High Court Judgment: What Did It Decide?
The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi delivered the impugned judgment on August 4, 2026, in a case filed by the Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) against Hotel Appolo and Tours Private Limited. IPRS, which is a copyright society registered under Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957, manages the performing rights in musical and literary works on behalf of its member composers, lyricists, and music publishers.
IPRS contended that the hotel was communicating copyrighted literary and musical works to its guests through television sets installed in individual hotel rooms without obtaining a licence from IPRS or paying the applicable statutory royalty. The hotel's defence was straightforward: it had already paid subscription charges to cable operators who held the necessary broadcast licences, and requiring the hotel to obtain a second, separate copyright licence for the same content was unreasonable and legally unfounded.
The High Court's Reasoning: Section 2(ff) and Communication to the Public
The High Court's decision turned on the interpretation of "communication to the public" as defined in Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, 1957. This provision states that making any work or performance available for being seen or heard or otherwise enjoyed by the public constitutes communication to the public, including through various means such as satellite or cable. Crucially, the definition explicitly includes communication to subscribers through cable, whether or not the subscribers are in the same place or at the same time.
The Calcutta High Court held that when a hotel provides cable television in its rooms, it is making copyrighted works available to its guests, who constitute a segment of "the public" within the meaning of the Act. The court reasoned that the hotel's provision of cable TV is a commercial amenity: guests pay for rooms that include television access, and the hotel derives commercial benefit from offering this facility. This, the court concluded, constitutes a separate act of "communication to the public" that is distinct from the cable operator's own broadcast, and therefore requires a separate licence.
On the basis of this reasoning, the High Court restrained the hotel from communicating or publicly performing works from the IPRS repertoire without a licence and directed payment of the applicable statutory royalty. The court also found the hotel guilty of copyright infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act.
The Hotel's Arguments and the Industry Concern
The hotel's primary argument was that it was merely providing a passive conduit for content that had already been licensed at the cable operator level. In this view, the cable operator's licence to broadcast content to its subscribers already covers the end-viewer (including hotel guests), and the hotel should not be treated as a separate "communicator" simply because it provides the physical infrastructure (televisions and cable connections) through which guests access that content.
This argument has significant support within the hospitality industry. Hotels, restaurants, and other commercial establishments have long contended that requiring them to obtain separate licences from copyright societies for content that is already licensed at the distribution level amounts to double payment for the same rights. Industry bodies have pointed out that cable operators and direct-to-home (DTH) service providers already pay licence fees that are meant to cover "communication to the public," and requiring an additional licence at the hotel level creates an unfair burden.
The Supreme Court Stay: What It Means
The Supreme Court's decision to stay the Calcutta High Court judgment means that hotels are not, for the time being, required to obtain separate IPRS licences for cable television provided in guest rooms. The stay will remain in effect while the Supreme Court hears the appeal on merits.
The grant of stay itself is significant because it suggests that the Supreme Court considers the legal questions raised by the hotel's appeal to be substantial enough to warrant preventing the High Court's order from taking effect in the interim. The ultimate resolution of this case will likely set a definitive precedent on whether hotels that provide cable or DTH television are engaged in a separate act of "communication to the public" under Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act.
Key Takeaways
Supreme Court stay: Justices KV Viswanathan and Arun Palli stayed the Calcutta HC judgment dated August 4, 2026, on August 20, 2026.
Calcutta HC ruling: Justices Debangsu Basak and Md Shabbar Rashidi had held that hotel cable TV constitutes "communication to the public" under Section 2(ff) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Parties: IPRS v. Hotel Appolo and Tours Private Limited.
Core issue: Whether hotels providing cable TV must obtain a separate copyright licence from IPRS, in addition to the cable operator's existing licence.
Interim effect: Hotels are not currently required to obtain separate IPRS licences for cable TV while the Supreme Court hears the appeal.
Industry impact: The final ruling will establish a definitive precedent for the entire hospitality sector.
Comments