A Primer On Spotting IP Issues Associated with Social Media Websites and Content

By Charles Macedo, Partner at Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein LLP

Most businesspeople and generalists understand that social media can be an important but risky part of doing business. This article seeks to identify how to spot potential intellectual property law issues associated with social media websites and content that can arise for a company.

I. Common Aspects of Social Media Websites

There are certain fundamental aspects that internet sites (whether they be social media websites or any other kind) have in common.

First, an internet site resides at a domain name or Uniform Resource Locator (URL). The domain name or URL is like the street address of a website. Social media websites such as Facebook and Twitter will also have specific URL pages for specific users.

Social media may be integrated into company websites directly by allowing for users of the websites to comment or share information in response to postings on the websites (like blogs) or products offered for sale (like product reviews or commentaries). Social media may also be integrated in less direct fashions, such as through sharing links which allow a user to tell his or her friends on a social media website like Facebook that the user “likes” the product, article or website, or by providing a link in a “tweet” on Twitter.

Websites are used for the sale of products, content or the display of other kinds of information.

In addition to merely displaying data or other information in response to an inquiry, websites can also obtain, process, reformat and/or display data obtained from other sources. For example, the US Patent and Trademark Office provides text and image versions of US patents at its website, http://www.uspto.gov. Other websites may use this same information and reformulate the data (sometimes along with other data) in different forms, such as at http://www.google.com/patents and http://www.pat2pdf.org.

All of these types of websites can create intellectual property rights and potentially infringe upon others’ intellectual property rights.

II. Relevant Intellectual Property Laws

Chart: Types of Intellectual Property Assets

Intellectual property is considered property of the mind. Expressions of ideas, identifying information, inventions and business relationships can all be protected (and potentially infringed) through different kinds of intellectual property laws and related legal theories.

  • Copyright law protects original expressions of ideas from being copied by others.
  • Trademark law protects identifying information (e.g., a company’s brand) from being used in a confusingly similar manner by more than one company in a related line of business.
  • Patent law protects new, useful and nonobvious ideas from being used by others.
  • Business Torts law protects against wrongful conduct such as misappropriating another’s property, unfairly competing, or tortiously interfering with someone else’s business expectation or contract.
  • Trade Secret law allows for the protection of secret formulae, patterns, or compilations of information.
  • Contract law protects business partners as the parties to the contact agree.

Social media websites and content can potentially impact a company with respect to each of these areas of intellectual property law.

A. Copyright Law

Copyright law provides legal protection for original expressions of ideas being reproduced without authorisation. Copyright protection covers a large variety of original works, including:

  • “literary works,” like books and magazines, computer software and related works;
  • “musical works,” like songs and the accompanying lyrics;
  • “dramatic works,” like plays;
  • “pantomimes and choreographic works,” like dance movements and ballets;
  • “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works,” like paintings, pictures, jewelry, toys and statues;
  • “motion pictures and other audiovisual works,” including movies, television broadcasts and DVDs;
  • “sound recordings,” including MP3 files;
  • “architectural works,” like designs for buildings; and
  • original compilations of data.

On the internet, copyright law can be used to protect original content, articles, data compilations and other information on a website. Publication of content on a company’s website or other websites can be protected by copyright law, but failure to timely register a claim to a copyright can limit the company’s damages.

Similarly, copyright law can potentially be used to prevent others from data mining content from a company’s website and using its original content without permission.

In particular, manipulating, parsing, reorganising, and merging public data with other data can lead to potentially copyrightable data. Copyright law can be an effective way to protect a company’s data and other original content.

In addition, if careful analysis is not done upfront on how a website obtains, manipulates and presents data and other information, that website can be the subject of a copyright infringement action by others. Here again, this is an area where consulting counsel in the first instance can save a company a lot of expense and aggravation over the long haul.

In the context of social media websites, blog postings, answers to requests, “tweets”, pictures taken or created and posted on a user’s page, or other content driven expression are all potentially copyrightable. A company needs to be careful how it, its employees and others post the company’s content and content of others.

Some social media websites claim copyright ownership over all items posted on their websites. Other social media websites recognise that the copyright remains with the author (presumably the individual or company posting the content at issue). Before a company allows for its information to be posted on social media websites, it should make sure to carefully review the terms and conditions of such websites to make sure that the company is not unwittingly giving up its copyrights to the content.

Companies also need to be careful of posting the copyrighted content of others without permission. Clearing rights to post others’ copyrighted material is an important step for any company.

Ownership of copyrights is also a difficult area for many people to fully understand. In preparing copyright applications, companies are often lulled into thinking that because the form appears so simple, they do not need expert advice on how to fill it out. However, this is an instance where the apparent simplicity can lead to disastrous results. See, e.g., “Joint Authorship of Doo-Wop Song Found Based on Disputed 10 per cent Contribution to Lyrics” [pdf], JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW & PRACTICE, November 1, 2009.

Identifying authors of a particular work and source materials from which a work was derived can be complicated. Also, making sure that a particular work made either with the assistance of or by another is a “work for hire” and/or properly assigned is another area where errors often occur. Many purported copyright owners do not appreciate that not every kind of “work” qualifies as a “work for hire”.

Making sure appropriate contracts are entered into when a copyrightable work is being prepared is important, and it is worth consulting a trained copyright lawyer in the first instance.

B. Trademark Law

In general, trademarks are used to identify a single source of products and services sold on a website.

A trademark is a symbol, a word, or another readily recognisable item, such as a brief musical snippet, that uniquely identifies the source or origin of goods. In other words, a trademark identifies where a particular product comes from.
Trademark law protects against likelihood of confusion; that is, whether consumers are likely to think that the sources of two goods or services are the same.

Web pages commonly use word or logo forms of trademarks. In the multimedia world that the internet has become, it is not surprising to also visit websites where sound marks (e.g., “Hedwig’s Theme” from the Harry Potter movie playing on a Harry Potter website) are used to identify the source of the website.

Similarly, domain names for websites can also be based on a company’s trademark, e.g., http:/www.amazon.com, http://www.panasonic.com, http://www.jvc.com, etc.

In social media, not only is a company’s trademark used in the main URL address, such as the use by Facebook of its trademark in its URL address http://www.facebook.com, but users’ trademarks may be used to identify specific user pages on such social media websites. For example, Starbucks has a Facebook page to advertise a specific coffee product.

On the internet, trademark law can potentially be used to protect competitors from selling goods or services with confusingly similar marks. It may also be used to prevent the use by others of domain names and user pages that incorporate a company’s trademarks and search engines and other software that use a company’s trademarks to divert potential customers to competitors’ websites, products or services.

These are important business tools that cannot be ignored when operating a business on the internet. The role of social media in this potential attraction or diversion is increasing every day as more companies create “fan” pages, social media websites create and implement more widgets to interconnect with other web outlets, and more and more opportunities to use trademarks in URL addresses are created, with not only additional high level domain names (.com, .org, .biz, .net, .tv, etc.), but also with individual user pages on social media and other websites.

To start with, as with other businesses, the selection and use of appropriate trademarks for an internet-based business is quite important. Selection of certain kinds of marks with popular descriptive terms in them can direct the flow of internet traffic to a company’s website.

However, adoption of that same kind of trademark can also result in consumers, who are looking for that company’s products or services, being diverted to a competitor’s website in a fair and reasonable manner.
Consider, for example, one of the leading “pop-up” cases from the Second Circuit involving the mark “1-800-Contacts”. On one hand, whenever a consumer searches for “contacts,” a website containing this mark will be returned. Thus, many potential internet consumers may potentially be driven to the website.

On the other hand, when consumers search for the mark “1-800-Contacts,” consumers may be diverted to a competitor’s website since search engines can sell the key word “contacts” to competitors with minimal risk of being accused of trademark infringement.

Thus, while selecting a mark that includes the product being offered as part of that mark may direct traffic to the website, there may also be great difficulty in trying to stop others from redirecting traffic to their websites.

Another important consideration at the time of selecting a mark is whether others are already using the mark. Thus, it is prudent to do a “clearance search” prior to implementing a new mark.

Trademark law can also be useful in preventing others from adopting domain names which incorporate a company’s registered trademark. These third party domain names using a company’s marks can be harmful to its reputation (depending upon their content) or can divert potential business leads away from the company.

While procedures like lawsuits and ICANN proceedings exist to force third parties that misappropriate a company’s registered trademarks to return the domain names to the company, the easiest way to avoid such costly procedures is for the company to register the various, obvious derivatives of its marks to be directed to its website in the first instance.

Spending fifty dollars today can save a company thousands of dollars in the future. In order to ensure that a company’s trademarks remain enforceable, best practices dictate that a proper system of monitoring and enforcing those trademarks be set up and maintained. Such a system typically includes the use of watch services to review filings with the US Patent and Trademark Office, periodic internet searches, following up with cease and desist letters, and if necessary, enforcement proceedings. Using “alerts” from search engines can also help identify unauthorized use of a company’s trademark on the internet.

For social media websites and other internet venues, the role of whose duty it is to police and enforce against violations differs internationally, as evidenced by the seemingly contradictory results in the U.S. and France in actions brought against eBay for its alleged failings in protecting against the sale of counterfeit items. See, e.g., eBay: A Tale of Two Defenses [pdf], IP Law360, August 22, 2008.

Companies should set up appropriate policing mechanisms to see how their important trademarks are used on e-commerce and social media websites, and when appropriate follow such websites notice and take down procedures to protect against abuses.

While these procedures may at times seem like expensive diversions to a company, the cost of not instituting such procedures can be diverted sales, brand tarnishment, and potentially a loss of trademark rights.

C. Patent Law

Since at least the State Street decision in 1998, patent protection has been important with respect to the internet. Although over the past few years, critics have sought to limit so-called “business method” patents, the recent Supreme Court decision in Bilski v. Kappos has confirmed that such patents are here to stay, and thus cannot be ignored as a class.

Patents are issued for a limited time (20 years from earliest filing date) for new, useful and non-obvious ideas to the first and true inventor.

While patent offices around the world are struggling with this issue, at least in the United States, novel and non-obvious techniques for manipulating data can potentially be subject to patent protection. Similarly, in the United States, other novel and non-obvious business method techniques can also potentially be subject to patent protection. In the context of the internet in particular, at least in the United States, patents can be used to prevent others from copying novel and non-obvious aspects of a website such as:

  • How data is accessed and manipulated;
  • Novel and nonobvious functions of one’s software;
  • New business methods implemented by one’s website;
  • New functionality of one’s software programs;
  • New techniques used to block misappropriation of one’s data.

Because of the difficulties that the US Patent and Trademark Office has had in grappling with manpower issues, confidential subject matter and the flood of applications in this area, it should be recognized upfront that obtaining patents in this area can be more costly, time-consuming and difficult than for patents in other, more traditional subject matters.

With respect to social media websites, patents can potentially cover ways that social media websites operate, ways that a company’s website interacts with a social media website such as through advertisements or linkages, or other operability that may be developed in the future.

As new business models are developed and implemented, patent protection for new and non-obvious practical applications and particular implementations are being sought and obtained, and will be the subject of future litigations in years to come.

D. Business Torts Law

In addition to federal trademark law, there are a host of related state law causes of action (e.g., unfair competition, tortious interference, trespass to chattels, misappropriation, etc.) that can be used to address trademark-like injuries.

Unfair competition is a flexible cause of action directed to address unfair or fraudulent business practices. A cause for unfair competition can potentially address a wide range of conduct by competitors that affects a company’s business.

Examples of cases in which unfair competition claims have been invoked include false or deceptive advertisements, misstatements about a competitor’s products, and other false and misleading statements which injure a business or its reputation.

When actual or potential customers are diverted by improper means from a company’s website, a cause of action for tortious interference with contract and/or tortious interference with prospective business relations may be appropriate. However, since this is a state law claim, it important to make sure to consider the correct law and the scope of potential defences available under that law.

Tortious interference claims can address the circumstances where a company’s trademarks are misused by other websites and cause inappropriate diversion of customers or prospective customers from the company’s website.

Conversion and misappropriation claims apply when property is taken. An interesting legal theory exists whereby a misappropriation claim may be present when goodwill is taken by improper acts, such as adopting another’s business name in a jurisdiction where that entity does not do business, but nonetheless has fame and goodwill based on that entity’s operation in other venues.

Trespass to chattel claims apply when someone improperly intrudes upon another’s property. These types of causes of action have been used, for example, to stop third parties from robot mining data from a website.

E. Trade Secret Law

Trade secret law protects a secret formula, pattern or compilation of information. One of the most famous trade secrets is Coca Cola’s secret formula, or the Colonel’s secret recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken. Other examples of trade secrets can include a secret manufacturing process, a list of customers or trade routes who purchase or would likely be interested in purchasing a particular product or service, or the source code for a computer program.

Most companies protect some aspect of their businesses using trade secret protections. Some are better than others at doing so.

Social media and the internet can put at risk a company’s trade secrets. Since the sine qua non of a trade secret is that it is kept secret, the speed and ease in which information can be rapidly (and permanently) distributed with a click of a button in social media and internet poses a clear risk for any company seeking to maintain a trade secret. A simple posting of a company’s secret information can destroy the secret and leave that information to be available to anyone.

Consider, for a second, a company that considers its customer list to be a trade secret and seeks to protect such information. A salesperson who identifies those customers as “friends” on Facebook, or “connections” on LinkedIn, or some other similar status on another social media website, could destroy the secret nature of such a list. It also can lead to that salesperson, in essence, appropriating that information should he or she leave to go to work for a competitor.

F. Contract Law

Contract law can be used to fill gaps in intellectual property law, and obtain protection that might not otherwise be clearly available.

The best time to work out the scope of rights with a business partner is at the beginning of the relationship. At that time, parties are more willing to give and take with each other since the prospect of a successful and profitable business relationship is around the corner. Thus, at that time, provisions can be included in agreements that help ensure that intellectual property will be recognized and respected.

However, care must be taken on how the contract clauses are drafted in order to avoid the risk of such clauses becoming unenforceable.

Arm’s length agreements can be useful ways of establishing royalty rates for intellectual property. Care must be taken in specifying what is being paid for pursuant to the agreement, such as the services, goods, rights to use intellectual property, etc.

Non-compete clauses, so long as properly drafted considering appropriate state law, can provide protection that other areas of intellectual property law might not otherwise provide. For example, non-compete clauses can protect a company from key employees leaving and stealing business or trade secrets. Again, care must be taken to come within the parameters of the particular state law that governs the contract.

Agreements which license rights to use a company’s trademarks can include remedies that are broader than the law might otherwise provide. Consequently, the uses that a company tolerates by agreement can affect the uses that the company can object to in future disputes. The failure to include certain necessary clauses in trademark licenses can have adverse results on the enforceability of such marks in future contracts.

Shrink wrap/click through agreements can be used to prevent misuse of a company’s data by users. However, enforceability of such agreements may be an issue, depending upon the terms, conditions, choice of law and method and document by which the user acknowledges acceptance.

Contracts can also be used to fill other gaps that other forms of intellectual property law might otherwise leave open.

III. Conclusion

For internet business, like other business, the use of intellectual property law needs to be carefully considered.

A strategic plan should be developed on how to identify a company’s intellectual property, turn it into a tangible asset and properly enforce and protect it.


(This post is by Charles R. Macedo and was has been reproduced from IP Watch where it was  published under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence.)

Professional Negligence

1168056_at_workIn the simplest terms, professionals are persons who have more than an average person’s skill, ability and training in any specific domain. Negligence committed by them in the course of performing a professional function is professional negligence. Generally, if professional negligence has been committed, the person who has been adversely affected by it can seek a legal remedy provided certain conditions are met and established.

Firstly, the professional must have represented that he has certain skills which are beyond that which a lay person has. In addition to this, he should have owed a duty of care to the person who claims he has been harmed, and he must have committed a breach of that duty. There must, of course, be harm caused by the professional’s breach of duty.

Whether or not a professional has breached his duty is determined by comparing the manner he has rendered services to the manner in which a reasonable person, acting in the same professional capacity, would be expected to render services. Specific professions may have guidelines, rules or laws which state exactly what a breach of professional duty would involve, and the standard cannot be lowered. However, if a professional were to represent that he would provide services of a much higher standard than a ‘reasonable’ person would provide, it would be entirely possible for the standards vis-à-vis that particular professional in that case to be raised accordingly.

Remedies for professional negligence could exist under contract law, the law of specific performance, tort law and various statutory laws. For example, Section 5 of the 1925 Legal Practitioner’s (Fees) Act says that lawyers may be liable for professional negligence.1 Theoretically, liability under both tort and contract could lie simultaneously, and a suit could be filed as such. However, since liability under contract arises from a voluntary agreement between the parties to it, and liability under tort law arises from English Common Law principles and case law, there are subtle differences between the two. Also, a claim under contract law could often be hard to prove since contracts with professionals are often implied contracts – few people sign written contracts with professionals they deal with such as their doctors, lawyers and accountants.

Remedies in cases of negligence can be sought at civil courts and, in some cases, in criminal courts.2 In India, it has begun to make sense to seek remedies for professional negligence under the 1986 Consumer Protection Act since the procedure followed by Consumer Dispute Redressal Agencies is, inter alia, not as long drawn out or as fraught with technicalities as the procedure of regular courts. The agencies are empowered to deal with deficiencies3 of professional service and award damages provided the service has not been rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service.4

Even if the doors of agencies created under the Consumer Protection Act are closed to claimants though, the other avenues to obtain remedies remain open to claimants. It may be possible to challenge clauses in contracts including standard format contracts which limit the liability of professionals in cases of negligence on various bases such as unconscionability. And agreements which completely restrain recourse to legal remedies are void.5

(This article is by Nandita Saikia and was first published at LawMatters.in.)

References:
1. No legal practitioner who has acted or has agreed to act shall, by reason only of being a legal practitioner be exempted from liability to be sued in respect of any loss or injury due to any negligence in the conduct of his professional duties.
2. See Sections 304A, 336, 337, 338, Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Section 2(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986
4. Section 2(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986
5. Section 28, Indian Contract Act, 1872

Juveniles Defined: 2000 Law Applies

A Juvenile Justice Act was passed in 1986. Fourteen years later, another Juvenile Justice Act was passed in 2000. Both of these Acts were meant to ensure that children who committed crimes were treated humanely and that they were given an adequate opportunity to reform themselves away from the influence of hardened criminals.

One of the main problems with the application of the criminal justice system to juveniles though has been that the two statutes of 1986 and 2000 both defined juveniles differently. Under the 1986 Act, juveniles
were defined as those under the age of 16 while under the 2000 Act, juveniles were defined as those under the age of 18.

The result of this inconsistency was that all those who committed crimes when they were over the age of 16 and under the age of 18 between the years 1986 and 2000 wound up being treated like adults. Many of them are still undertrials today.

One such person, Hari Ram, approached the Supreme Court for relief. He had allegedly committed an offence at the age of 17 and was being treated as an adult. A bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Altamas Kabir and Cyriac Joseph allowed his plea to be treated as a juvenile and settled the inconsistency between the two statutes.

The Court, in the case of Hari Ram v State of Rajasthan, said that it was unacceptable to have two different
definitions operate simultaneously. It said, “…all persons who were below the age of 18 years on the date of commission of the offence even prior to April 1, 2001 [the day the 2000 Act came into force] would be treated as juveniles even if the claim of juvenility was raised after they had attained the age of 18 years on or before the commencement of the Act and were undergoing sentence upon being convicted.”

Thus, the 2000 law has now, thankfully, unequivocally been given precedence over the 1986 Act. This should come as welcome news to all those who can now benefit from the definition of juveniles under the
2000 law.

Another Incident of Ragging

Every once in a while, the news of a student dying because of ragging hits headlines. Usually, it’s followed by a few debates on the telly after which everyone but those involved in and affected by the issue forget all about it. Until the next time it happens.

On March 16, 2009, the issue came up before the Supreme Court following the death of Aman Kachroo, a student of Dr Rajendra Prasad Medical College, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Aman was ragged following which he died. It isn’t entirely clear what exactly it was that caused him to die: he suffered a perforated eardrum and internal injuries but there are queries about whether the doctor who attended to him was negligent in treating him.

In addition to this, Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam also spoke of the death of a girl student of Agriculture and Engineering College, Bapatla, Andhra Pradesh after allegedly being
forced to dance obscenely.

The Supreme Court did not take the issue lightly and Justices Arijit Pasayat and A K Ganguly issued a show cause notice to the Principal and Registrar of the Dr Rajendra Prasad Medical College asking them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for not complying with the court’s directions to prevent ragging.

The notice issued by the Supreme Court also required the Principal and Registrar of the Medical College to state what action was taken after the ragging incident was brought to their notice. In addition to this, the court asked the Medical Council of India to inquire into the allegations of medical negligence against the doctor who treated Aman, and the Chief Secretaries and Directors General of Himachal Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh to file separate affidavits stating what they have done to comply with the court’s earlier directions and what action has been taken against the two institutions as well as against the students who did the ragging.

Justice Arijit Pasayat said in no uncertain terms, “It appears that the concern shown by this court has not been taken seriously by the authorities. Prima facie it is contempt of this court. The directions issued by this court on May 16, 2007 and February 11, 2009 on the basis of the R K Raghavan Committee Report to end the menace have not been complied with. Time has come for cutting off financial age to there institutions which are not complying with the directions.”

Perhaps the possibility of this happening i.e. financial support being cut will actually get institutions to do what they can to stop ragging. The University Grants Commission has also said that it will finalise stringent rules on the issue by the first week of April 2009.

The intervention of the Supreme Court and the measures of the UGC come too late for the students who have alreay lost their lives but, with any luck, they will help others in the future.

References:

The Times of India, The Hindu, Indlaw,  IndiaJournal

The National Flower

It doesn’t seem too unreasonable at first glance to say that a national symbol should not be used by a political party for political gain. That is essentially what Shaheen Parvez has been saying for some five years now. However, on March 16, 2009, the Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition she filed on the issue.

It was contended in the SLP that the lotus which is the BJP’s symbol cannot be used by the party because such use would be against the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act. This is the statute which prevents such symbols as the Ashoka Chakra (and a whole host of others) from being used in a number of ways such as in the names of commercial establishments.

This SLP which sought the cancellation of the lotus symbol allotted to the BJP was made against a December 2008 Delhi High Court Order and was dismissed at the admission stage itself by a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan, Justice Sirpurkar and Justice Sathashivam.

The petitioner said that she wrote letters to the Election Commission in 2004 and 2005 asking for the cancellation of the symbol but the Commission turned her down saying that the symbol had been reserved by the BJP for some twenty-five years prior to which it had been used by independents. It was after this that the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court. After failing there too, she approached the Supreme Court.

The apex Court, however, did nothing at all towards preventing the party from using the symbol.

Reference: The Hindu; March 17, 2009

The Recovery of Loans

The accepted practice is for people to approach civil courts for relief in respect of civil offences and for criminal offences to be tried in criminal courts. In addition to this, no one can be sent to gaol because of having committed a civil offence. Neither can people be jailed merely because they are unable to repay debts. This has been accepted not only at the national level but has in fact been enshrined in international covenants which have been signed by a vast majority of the world’s countries.

However, there are times when some financial entities and assorted money lenders have been accused of trying to turn civil wrongs into criminal offences by abusing the legal process. In all probability
this is done to pressurize borrowers to repay money.

The method which is apparently usually used is to accuse the borrower of having cheated and having committed a criminal breach of trust. Both cheating and criminal breaches of trust are offences under the Indian Penal Code, the former in the infamous Section 420 and the latter in Section 406.

High Courts are of course empowered to stop this from happening and frequently do. In the case of Alpic Finance v. Sadasivam, the Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court quashing a criminal complaint against a borrower under such circumstances.

Also, although lawyers often use the ‘cheating and criminal breach of trust’ template, it is unclear exactly how it is possible to be guilty of both offences at the same time considering that, as the Madras High Court held in the 1936 case of R v. McIver, the two are incompatible. One rests on an intention to deceive while the other rests on a foundation of trust, so to speak.

Even if it is somehow possible to commit the offences simultaneously, the fact remains that civil wrongs are not to be disguised as criminal offences, and ordinarily, it should be possible to prevent this from happening by approaching the High Court.

The Lowest Possible Sentence

Judges of high courts have been exercising much discretion in awarding sentences for various offences by reducing the sentences awarded by lower courts. For example, the High Court of Bombay let off a person convicted in an acid attack case with a sentence which amounted to 35 days in gaol.

In some instances, the courts have even awarded sentences which are lower than the minimum sentences mandated by law. The Supreme Court hasn’t been too pleased with this trend and it has asked judges not to ordinarily exercise their discretion so as to go below the minimum sentence prescribed by Parliament saying, “If Parliament has provided  for a minimum sentence, the same should ordinarily be imposed save and except in some exceptional cases…”

A Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices  S B Sinha and Cyriac Joseph said this in a case under the Essential Commodities Act. A kerosene dealer who had been found to commit irregularities in the storage of kerosene appealled to the apex court for leniency after being sentenced to six months in gaol. He argued that the Essential Commodities Act itself provides for a sentence of less than six months if the Judge finds special reasons in favour of the accused. Finding no such reasons, the court dismissed his appeal.

The Supreme Court also said: “Ordinarily, the legislative sentencing policy as laid in some Special Acts where the parliamentary intent has been expressed in unequivocal terms should be applied. Sentence of less than the minimum prescribed by Parliament may be imposed only in exceptional cases.”