Meet Rajesh Yadav, the lawyer who led the Delhi University photocopiers to victory

Last week, Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw of the Delhi High Court pronounced judgment in the copyright infringement case filed by international publishers against Rameshwari Photocopy Services, situated in the North Campus of Delhi University.

Dismissing the four year old suit, Justice Endlaw held that “copyright, specially in literary works, is not an inevitable, divine or natural right conferred on an author”. The Court went on to say that the copyright law is intended to increase, and not impede knowledge.

Bar & Bench’s Nalini Sharma spoke to Advocate Rajesh Yadav, the counsel for Rameshwari Photocopy Services, about the landmark judgment and how he managed to win his first copyright infringement case.

Nalini Sharma: So let’s start with a little bit of background?

Rajesh Yadav: I graduated in B. Sc from Kirorimal College, Delhi University in 1983 and then went on to study law from Campus Law Center, Delhi University. I completed law in 1986 and became a member of the Bar Council of Delhi in 1987. I started my law practice in February 1989 and haven’t looked back ever since.

My practice has always been hardcore civil litigation. I was always on the original side, even in the beginning, in the district courts. I was doing matters on the matrimonial side, property matters, all kinds of civil litigation. I’ve done a couple of IPR matters, but this case was one of the bigger ones.

Nalini Sharma:  So how come you took up this case?

Rajesh Yadav: (laughs) I have never taken up a copyright matter. Rameshwari were in fact Saurabh Seth’s clients. He is a junior colleague and an upcoming lawyer. He approached me when this case came up and asked me, ‘Would you argue this matter?’ and my instant response was, ‘Surely I’ll argue this matter.’

Nalini Sharma: What made you say yes?

Rajesh Yadav: Saurabh Seth had prepared a great defence when he approached me. He had made a very good written statement and had worked very hard on the matter. He was the one, in fact, who had found all the Canadian Supreme Court judgments and the research on American laws. Prior to this, I hadn’t done any copyright cases, so it was a bit challenging. But we researched together and worked hard to fight and get this judgment in our favour.

Nalini Sharma: And what did you think of the judgment?

Rajesh Yadav: I think this is the first judgment on this issue by any court in India. During our research, we couldn’t find any direct case that dealt with this. So I don’t know whether this will go till the Supreme Court or not, but the plaintiffs will surely challenge it.

From whatever I have read, it is a very well written judgment. I think the learned judge has put in a lot of hard work. I think the writing of the judgment would have taken a lot of time, at least a couple of months. To write 94 pages on one issue of one Act, he must have considered a lot of aspects.

Nalini Sharma: It has been almost two years since the judgment was reserved.

Rajesh Yadav: Two years, yes. It was reserved in November 2014. From what I know of Justice Endlaw, he has a habit of making lengthy notes. It is a great advantage when you record all the submissions of both parties and do not miss out on anything. So in such cases, even if the judgment takes some time, it’s doesn’t make much of a difference, because you know that the judge is considering each and every thing.

Plus the matter was so interesting that he wouldn’t have forgotten much. If it was a regular routine matter, you might think that over a period of time the judge might forget some facts or arguments. But this was such an off-beat matter and the interest was such that you can be certain nothing is missed out.

Nalini Sharma: Were you expecting this judgment to go in your favour?

Rajesh Yadav: So, we had taken a lot of objections based on procedural laws. We believed there was no assignment by the authors placed on record by the plaintiffs in favour of the publishers and the suit was not in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. But while arguing, Mr. Gopal Subramanium, who was arguing on behalf of the University, had waived off all these objections. He wanted the main issue of copyright infringement to be decided by the court. So I am not sure if I can say the judgment was really expected.

But, I think we all should be happy. Not because we were representing the students or the university or the photocopiers, but because this judgment gives so many more opportunities for the students to research and study without having to buy these books.

Now, students can freely make their own notes and compilations using photocopies.

Like in our Delhi High Court, we have so many great books by foreign authors and we anyway take photocopies everyday. In fact, we have a photocopier within our library itself!

Image of Rameshwari Photocopy Services taken from here.