INTRODUCTION

‘India Wins Freedom’ by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad is at the center of the argument. Thirty pages of the book, which were sealed in the National Archives and National Library and were to be published thirty years after Maulana Azad’s passing, were at the core of the issue. One of Maulana Azad’s legal heirs, Najma Heptulla, filed a lawsuit against Orient Longman Limited and Professor Humayun Kabir in an attempt to stop the publishing of these sealed pages. Important issues regarding shared authorship, copyright ownership, and the rights of legal heirs in contrast to the original author’s intentions are brought up in this case.

FACTS

• Prof. Humayun Kabir also helped Maulana Azad write the book ‘India Wins Freedom’ by translating his ideas from Urdu to English.

• Maulana Azad passed away on February 22, 1958, before the manuscript’s November 1957 publishing date.

• Thirty years after Azad’s passing, Prof. Kabir made arrangements for thirty pages of the book to be published and sealed at the National Archives and National Library.

• Prof. Kabir claimed to be the “composer” of the book and signed a contract with Orient Longman for its publication on September 2, 1958.

• Maulana Azad’s legal heirs and the Indian Council of Cultural Relations were to split the royalty, according to the agreement.

• By arguing that the approval of the legal heirs was required, the plaintiff contested Orient Longman’s authority to publish the sealed portions after the 30-year period.

ISSUES 

1. Who is the author of the book ‘India Wins Freedom’?
2. Whether Prof. Kabir had the authority to execute the agreement dated September 2, 1958, with Orient Longman?
3. Whether the legal heirs can prevent the publication of the sealed portions of the book against the original author’s intentions?

ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff’s Arguments: 

• The entire book’s copyright belongs to Maulana Azad’s legal representatives.

• Professor Kabir was not authorized to sign the contract with Orient Longman.

• The sealed portions cannot be published without the approval of the legal representatives.

Defendants’ Arguments:

• Professor Kabir was either Maulana Azad’s co-author or the only author.
• Since the legal heirs had approved the arrangement, it was enforceable.
• The original author intended for the work to be published in its entirety thirty years later.

DECISION 

In the Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Limited case, the Delhi High Court tackled intricate issues pertaining to publication licenses and authorship rights for Maulana Azad’s book “India Wins Freedom.” Najma Heptulla, the petitioner, said that her assent was required as a legal heir and objected to the publishing of sealed parts of the book. However, after reviewing the evidence, the Court concluded that, because of their active intellectual cooperation in its production, Maulana Azad and Prof. Humayun Kabir were co-authors of the work.

The 1958 contract between Prof. Kabir and Orient Longman was upheld by the Court, which further noted that the legal heirs had consented to the terms of the agreement by taking royalties for 30 years without protest. The Court rejected the idea that authorship should be given exclusively to the individual who transcribes the work, emphasizing that both the subject matter and its expression are significant when assessing authorship. Importantly, given that Maulana Azad had specifically arranged for the sealed portions to be disclosed after 30 years, the Court affirmed the significance of respecting the original author’s wishes for publishing.

The Court decided that protecting the legal heirs’ rights to royalties would sufficiently safeguard their interests, therefore before Orient Longman could publish the entire book, they had to give a security deposit of one lac rupees. After concluding that preventing publication would go against the author’s desires as well as the public interest principles in literary works, the Court revoked the temporary injunction that had stopped the publication of the sealed portions. In addition to setting significant precedents for collaborative authorship and the conduct-based validation of publishing agreements, the Court’s ruling struck a balance between the rights of legal heirs and the significance of maintaining and honoring an author’s intended legacy.

ANALYSIS 

An important ruling that has influenced Indian perceptions of authorship rights, publication agreements, and copyright law is the Najma Heptulla v. Orient Longman Limited case. The Court’s decision established important guidelines for joint authorship, acknowledging that collaboration and intellectual input in the creation of creative works can qualify as joint authorship even when the contributions are diverse. The Court emphasized the significance of both intellectual content and its expression by recognizing Maulana Azad and Prof. Kabir as joint authors, rejecting the oversimplified notion that authorship belongs only to the individual who writes down the work.

The rights of legal successors, the integrity of publication contracts, and the original author’s objectives were all expertly balanced in this ruling. Long-standing publishing agreements can be stabilized by the Court’s consideration of the acquiescence doctrine, which shows how accepting benefits under an agreement can stop parties from subsequently contesting its validity. The ruling also upholds the idea that copyright laws ought to safeguard not only financial gains but also the intended legacy of authors and the public’s desire to access literary works.

Additionally, the Court’s requirement of a security deposit prior to publishing demonstrates a sensible strategy for safeguarding the financial interests of legal successors while permitting the author’s desires to be fulfilled. For matters involving joint authorship claims, posthumous publication rights, and the conflict between the rights of writers and their legal successors, this decision establishes a useful precedent. In the end, the ruling fortifies the framework for safeguarding literary works while making sure that the core goal of copyright law—to encourage the production and sharing of information while defending the rights of all parties concerned—is not superseded by technical legal reasons.

The judgment makes several significant contributions to copyright law:

1. By acknowledging that both the person who contributes ideas and the person who expresses them can be joint authors provided there is intellectual collaboration and a pre-concerted collaborative design, it offers significant guidelines for joint authorship.
2. The Court rejected the idea that authorship should be given exclusively to the individual who writes down the work, emphasizing that both the subject matter and the language are significant when assessing authorship.
3. The ruling strikes a compromise between the original author’s intentions and the rights of legal successors, concluding that although legal heirs have rightful copyright interests, they shouldn’t take precedence over the author’s explicit desires about publishing.
4. The ruling also illustrates how the concepts of estoppel and acquiescence are applied in copyright cases, highlighting how parties might avoid subsequently contesting the legality of an agreement by accepting its benefits.