Copyright Infringement of SPAN Project by APAAR ID Initiative"
#### Case Title, Order Date, Case Number, Neutral Citation, Name of Court, and Judge
The case titled *Champion Project Enterprises & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.*, with order date 22.08.2025, case number W.P.(C)-IPD 47/2025, and no specific neutral citation provided, was adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia.
#### Facts
The petitioners, led by Champion Project Enterprises and including an individual innovator (Petitioner No. 2), filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, seeking compensation for the alleged unauthorized use and infringement of their original project titled "Student Permanent Account Number" (SPAN). The genesis of SPAN traces back to 1993 when Petitioner No. 2, then an 11th-standard student, was inspired by a devastating earthquake in Latur District, Maharashtra, which led to the loss of numerous lives and educational records. This motivated the development of a digital record management system to preserve and secure the complete educational identity and documentation of every student in India from kindergarten (KG) to post-graduation (PG). SPAN was designed as a unique educational identification system assigning a permanent digital academic number to each student across India.
Petitioner No. 2 claims to be the original author and innovator of SPAN, developed through his own intellectual labor, creativity, and expertise, qualifying it as a work of original authorship under Sections 2(o) and 13(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioners assert they shared details of SPAN with the Government of India via letters to the Education Minister on 24.02.2017 and 10.05.2017, highlighting its potential to generate ₹30,000 crores annually for the Education Department and benefit students, schools, colleges, and vocational training institutions. The Government of India launched the "Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry" (APAAR ID) project in 2024, which the petitioners allege is identical to SPAN and has been unlawfully copied without permission, acknowledgment, or consultation.
The petitioners further note that a special session of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) on 21.09.2019 to discuss the draft National Education Policy (NEP) did not include APAAR ID, and although the government claims APAAR ID is based on NEP 2020, the notification dated 29.11.2021 does not substantiate this. The petitioners seek ₹428,53,58,300 (Rupees Four Hundred Twenty-Eight Crores Fifty-Three Lakhs Fifty-Eight Thousand Three Hundred Only) as compensation for financial losses due to this alleged intellectual property violation.
#### Dispute
The central dispute revolves around whether the petitioners hold statutory copyright over the SPAN project and whether the Government of India's APAAR ID project constitutes an unauthorized use and infringement of SPAN. The petitioners argue that SPAN, developed in 1993 and shared with the government in 2017, was unlawfully replicated in APAAR ID, launched in 2024, without due credit or consultation. The respondents, represented by the Union of India and other governmental entities, are yet to present a detailed defense in the provided document excerpt, but the core contention appears to be the government's claim that APAAR ID is an independent initiative possibly aligned with NEP 2020, challenging the petitioners' assertion of copying.
#### Reasoning
The judgment, delivered by Justice Tejas Karia, begins by acknowledging the petitioners' filing under Article 226, seeking a writ of mandamus for compensation. The court recognizes the petitioners' claim of statutory copyright in SPAN, emphasizing Petitioner No. 2's role as the original author under the Copyright Act, 1957. The court notes the historical context of SPAN's development following the 1993 Latur earthquake and its objective to create a centralized digital record system for students' educational identities. The letters sent to the Education Minister in 2017 are cited as evidence of the petitioners' proactive engagement with the government, detailing SPAN's benefits and economic potential.
The court highlights the petitioners' allegation that APAAR ID, launched in 2024, mirrors SPAN's structure and purpose, suggesting unauthorized copying. The absence of APAAR ID in the 2019 CABE session and the lack of clear linkage to NEP 2020 in the 29.11.2021 notification are presented as supporting evidence that APAAR ID may not be an original government initiative. However, the reasoning is incomplete in the provided excerpt, as it truncates before a detailed analysis of the respondents' position or a legal evaluation of copyright infringement. The court’s preliminary engagement suggests it will assess the originality of SPAN, the scope of its disclosure to the government, and the extent of similarity with APAAR ID, potentially considering whether the government’s actions constitute a breach of intellectual property rights or a legitimate public policy implementation.
#### Decision
The decision portion of the judgment is not fully detailed in the provided document, which ends abruptly after page 3 of 8. The court has initiated the adjudication process by outlining the petitioners' claims and the background of the dispute. No final ruling on the writ petition, including the grant of mandamus or the compensation amount of ₹428,53,58,300, is discernible from the excerpt. The case appears to be in the early stages of judicial review, with the court likely to require further submissions from both parties, including the respondents' defense, before arriving at a conclusive decision. The truncated nature of the document suggests that the matter remains pending for a comprehensive judgment, potentially involving evidence of copyright ownership, the government’s intent, and the legal implications of APAAR ID’s development.
---
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
---
"Champion Project Enterprises vs Union of India: Delhi High Court Examines Alleged
