The case of Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs Ashar Nisar & Ors. represents a significant legal confrontation in the realm of digital copyright infringement, where the plaintiffs, Star India Pvt. Ltd. and its affiliate (operating the streaming platform Disney+ Hotstar), sought to combat the unauthorised dissemination of their proprietary content through rogue websites and mobile applications. The plaintiffs, prominent players in the entertainment and media industry, operate numerous television channels and hold exclusive digital rights to broadcast and stream a wide array of content, including TV shows, films, and sports events. Their grievance centred around defendants who were allegedly hosting, streaming, and distributing this copyrighted content without authorisation, thereby infringing upon the plaintiffs’ exclusive rights under the Copyright Act, 1957, and causing substantial financial and reputational harm.
The plaintiffs’ plaint detailed their extensive portfolio of copyrighted works and emphasised their exclusive broadcast reproduction rights, particularly highlighting content licensed from the International Cricket Council (ICC). They identified two categories of defendants: (1) infringing mobile applications (Defendants No. 1 to 6 and 35 to 66), which illegally streamed their content, and (2) rogue websites (Defendants No. 7 to 12 and 67 to 153), which facilitated the distribution of these pirated applications. Additionally, the suit implicated domain registrars, internet service providers (ISPs), and government entities, including the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), for their roles in enabling or failing to curb infringing activities.
The procedural trajectory of the case revealed a lack of contestation from the defendants. The High Court initially granted an ex-parte injunction on April 6, 2022, restraining the defendants from unauthorised broadcasting or streaming of the plaintiffs’ content. Despite repeated opportunities, none of the defendants filed written statements or appeared to defend their actions. This non-participation led the court to proceed ex-parte against them, culminating in the confirmation of the interim injunction and the eventual impleadment of additional defendants identified during the suit’s pendency. The plaintiffs’ affidavits of service confirmed that all defendants had been duly notified, yet none responded, reinforcing the court’s inference of their culpability.
In its analysis, the court underscored the plaintiffs’ unchallenged assertions, noting that the absence of written statements or denials under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, rendered the plaint’s averments deemed admitted. The judgment highlighted the defendants’ blatant infringement, which not only violated the plaintiffs’ copyrights but also undermined the economic viability of legitimate content distribution. The court observed that the defendants’ activities were systematic and aimed at profiting from pirated content, thereby eroding the value of the plaintiffs’ intellectual property. The lack of any defence or justification from the defendants further solidified the plaintiffs’ entitlement to relief.
The court’s decree granted a permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them from hosting, streaming, or facilitating access to the plaintiffs’ content through unauthorised platforms. Specifically, the order targeted rogue applications (e.g., Ninja TV, Hotstar Mod App) and websites, prohibiting their owners and operators from continuing their infringing activities. The plaintiffs, however, chose not to pursue ancillary reliefs such as damages or rendition of accounts, focusing instead on the injunctive measures to halt the piracy.
This judgment is emblematic of the judiciary’s robust stance against digital piracy, particularly in cases where defendants fail to engage with the legal process. The court’s reliance on the principle of deemed admissions under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC streamlined the adjudication, emphasising the importance of timely and substantive defences in intellectual property disputes. The ruling also reflects the challenges faced by content creators in safeguarding their rights in an increasingly digital and decentralised media landscape. By affirming the plaintiffs’ exclusive rights and issuing sweeping injunctions, the court sent a clear deterrent message to entities engaged in similar infringing activities.
In conclusion, the case serves as a landmark precedent in the fight against digital piracy, reinforcing the legal protections afforded to copyright holders under Indian law. The case highlights the judiciary’s willingness to grant decisive relief in the face of uncontested infringement while also emphasising the procedural efficiencies that can be leveraged when defendants default. For the entertainment industry, this judgment represents a critical victory in its ongoing battle to preserve the value and integrity of copyrighted content in the digital age.
