Copyright Claims in Governmental Technology Projects
Introduction: This case study concerns the writ petition filed by Champion Project Enterprises and others versus the Union of India and others before the High Court of Delhi. The petitioners allege unauthorized use and infringement of their original work, the “Student Permanent Account Number” (SPAN) Project, by the Government of India through the APAAR ID Project—Automated Permanent Academic Account Registry. The matter fundamentally revolves around allegations of copyright infringement vis-à-vis a digital academic identity project launched nationally and the subsequent claim for compensation running into hundreds of crores by the petitioners.
Factual Background: The genesis of the SPAN Project dates back to the tragic earthquake of 1993 in Latur, Maharashtra. Petitioner No. 2, then a student, was motivated by the loss of personal and educational documents during that disaster to develop a centralized digital record management system intended to safeguard every student’s educational journey from kindergarten to post-graduation. After years of conceptualization and development, this solution was christened “SPAN.”
According to the petitioners, SPAN was designed to assign a permanent digital academic number to every student in India, ensuring secure preservation and accessibility of educational records across the country. In February and May 2017, the petitioners claimed to have reached out to the Education Minister, Government of India, sharing the details and potential benefits of the SPAN Project, including its projected financial benefits for the government. They further asserted that APAAR ID, introduced by the Government of India in 2024, mirrors the functionality and structure of their SPAN Project. The petitioners averred that their copyright application for the SPAN Project was submitted in May 2023 and remains pending. Objections raised by the Registrar of Copyright regarding authorship were addressed by October 2023.
The APAAR ID Project, as noted, was claimed by the Ministry of Education to be based on the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, but the petitioners disputed this claim, asserting the absence of documentation regarding APAAR ID in relevant government notifications or NEP documents. The first official mention of APAAR was reportedly during a panel discussion in July 2023.
Procedural Background: The petitioners brought this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus and other appropriate orders for compensation amounting to ₹4,28,53,58,300 for the alleged unauthorized use and copyright infringement of their SPAN Project. Subsequent communications under the Right to Information Act (RTI) between December 2024 and March 2025 sought explanations about the development and adoption of APAAR ID, project tendering, and the status of the SPAN Project’s copyright registration. The Ministry of Education’s response in January 2025 denied direct relevance and clarified the launch dates and procedural aspects of APAAR ID development.
The petitioners, dissatisfied with these explanations, proceeded with appellate mechanisms under the RTI Act and further representation before the Copyright Office and governmental ministries.
Core Dispute: The primary dispute in this matter is whether the APAAR ID Project, as launched and implemented by the Union of India, constitutes an unauthorized copy and infringement of the petitioners’ SPAN Project under the Copyright Act, 1957. The petitioners allege that their intellectual property was communicated to the authorities in 2017 and that the structure, objective, and essence of APAAR ID are substantially derived from SPAN. It is contended that such appropriation occurred without consent, attribution, or acknowledgment, culminating in significant alleged financial loss and violation of statutory rights.
On the contrary, the respondents, represented by government counsel, maintained the originality and policy-driven development of APAAR ID, denying all allegations of copying, unauthorized use, and infringement.
Discussion on Relevant provisions of law: Throughout the proceedings, both parties referred to statutory provisions and earlier judgments to substantiate their positions.
However, it is noteworthy that the petition document and the judgment, as delivered, do not specifically enumerate or cite any earlier precedents or judgments by name or citation number. The petitioners mainly leaned on the statutory framework—specifically Section 2(o) and Section 13(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957—to claim subsistence of copyright and the enforceability of original works even during the pendency of registration. Section 63 of the Act was invoked regarding wilful infringement.
The respondents relied on the lack of substantive evidence of copying, absence of documented government communications regarding APAAR ID before 2023, and procedural discrepancies in the petitioners’ copyright application.
In the judgment, the Court itself did not refer to or rely upon any previous High Court or Supreme Court decisions, focusing predominantly on the facts and statutory interpretation as pleaded and evidenced before it.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge: Justice Tejas Karia meticulously analyzed the material placed before the Court. The judgment notes the petitioners’ reliance on letters allegedly sent to the Ministry in 2017 sharing the SPAN concept. Upon examination, however, the Court found no proof of dispatch or receipt. Even assuming the letter had been sent, it did not annex the full SPAN project details as submitted during the litigation. The similarities provided in the petition did not form part of the letter allegedly sent to the Ministry.
A central finding was that there was no basis for the allegation that APAAR ID was a copy of SPAN simply on the grounds of the letter sent in 2017. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the Registrar of Copyrights had shared the SPAN Project details with the Ministry of Education, precluding any claim of unlawful reproduction based on information obtained from the copyright application.
The timing of APAAR ID’s launch and clearance of copyright objection was also considered. The APAAR ID Project was launched while the petitioners’ copyright application was still under objection, which undermined any argument that the project was copied from SPAN. Throughout, the petitioners failed to establish any traceable infringement under the Copyright Act.
Given the absence of substantive evidence and lack of material showing sharing or adoption of the SPAN concept by government authorities, as well as the lack of correlation between the alleged dissemination of SPAN details and the implementation of APAAR ID, the Court concluded that the petitioners had not made out a case for copyright infringement.
Final Decision
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the writ petition, holding it devoid of merit. The Court found that the petitioners did not establish any infringement of copyright by the respondents in developing or implementing APAAR ID, nor did the evidence support the claim of unlawful copying or utilization of the SPAN Project. Accordingly, all pending applications were disposed of alongside the main petition.
Law Settled in This Case: This judgment clarifies the evidentiary standards requisite for establishing copyright infringement claims, particularly in relation to governmental projects and alleged appropriation of original works. Mere transmission of proposals or conceptual communications to authorities does not constitute actionable dissemination unless supported by documented proof of acceptance, use, or sharing of the substantive details of the original work. The pendency or existence of copyright registration, in itself, does not prove unauthorized use or infringement unless clear, corroborated evidence is presented. The Court reinforces that claims of copying must move beyond parallels in objectives or structure and must be substantiated with concrete evidence of transmission, adoption, and reproduction.
Case Title: Champion Project Enterprises Vs Union of India & Ors
Date of Order: August 22, 2025
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 47/2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7165
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
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