Music at Weddings: Fair Use or Unfair Demands? A Simple Guide to Section 52(1) (za)

INTRODUCTION

Music is an essential part of Indian weddings from haldi and mehndi to sangeet, baraat, and the reception. However, in recent years, copyright bodies and music labels have started demanding licenses and royalties for songs played at these events. This has created confusion among families and event organizers. The key question is: Does the law really require a license for playing music at weddings? The answer lies in understanding Section 52(1) (za) of the Copyright Act, which provides a special exemption for marriage-related festivities.

WHAT SECTION 52(1) (ZA) REALLY SAYS

Section 52(1) (za), added to the Copyright Act in 1994, creates a very important exception to copyright infringement. It states that the performance of music or communication of sound recordings during a bona fide religious ceremony does not amount to copyright violation. This means that when music is played as part of a genuine religious or cultural event, the law treats it as exempt. What makes this provision even more significant is its explanation, which extends the meaning of a “religious ceremony.” The law clarifies that a religious ceremony includes “marriage processions and other social festivities associated with a marriage.” This expansion is crucial because it acknowledges the deeply cultural and social nature of Indian weddings, where rituals and celebrations are often intertwined.

By inserting this explanation, the legislature intentionally ensured that the exemption applies not just to the main marriage ritual, but to all connected events whether traditional or modern. Therefore, functions like haldi, mehndi, sangeet, sagai, baraat, and even post-wedding receptions fall under this protection. These events are culturally recognized as part of the marriage process, and music is integral to each of them. Importantly, the legislature used the word “including” in the explanation. In statutory interpretation, “including” signals an open-ended and non-exhaustive list, meaning the scope is meant to be broad and flexible, not restricted or narrowly defined. It shows that the lawmakers intended to cover every reasonable celebration connected to a marriage, not just a limited set of rituals.

In simple terms, Section 52(1)(za) protects all wedding-related festivities religious, social, traditional, or contemporary and confirms that families do not commit copyright infringement by playing music at such events. The law is written broadly on purpose, reflecting India’s diverse marriage customs and ensuring that joyful celebrations remain free from legal burdens.

WHY ARE LICENSING BODIES STILL DEMANDING FEES?

Even though Section 52(1) (za) clearly exempts music played during marriage ceremonies and related festivities, licensing bodies such as IPRS (Indian Performing Rights Society) and PPL (Phonographic Performance Ltd.) continue to demand licenses and collect fees from families, DJs, wedding planners, event managers, and banquet halls. Their continued demands are mainly the result of unclear judicial interpretation and the absence of a direct court ruling that settles the issue. Instead of interpreting Section 52(1) (za) directly, courts have focused on technicalities, especially regarding government circulars issued to clarify the exemption. These circulars were struck down not because the exemption was wrong, but because the authorities issuing them lacked the power to do so. This left the underlying legal question unanswered.

Below is an elaboration of the key cases that contributed to this confusion:

1. PPL v. State of Punjab (2011):  Narrow Interpretation of Marriage Exemption

In this case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that a license is required when music is played during activities “connected with” marriage but not part of the “actual marriage ceremony.” The narrow reading created confusion and gave licensing societies justification to demand royalties.

     2. Novex Communications v. Union of India: Government Circular Struck Down

In this case, the Delhi High Court examined a government circular issued to exempt weddings from copyright licensing requirements. However, the court struck down the circular not because the exemption was wrong, but because the authority issuing it did not have the legal power to create such exemptions. Moreover, the court did not examine or interpret Section 52(1) (za) itself. It did not say that weddings require licenses. It only said that the government body could not issue such a circular without proper authority. This Impacted Licensing bodies to misrepresent this judgment to claim that weddings require licenses, even though the court never said that.

     3. PPL v. State of Goa: Similar Issue, Similar Outcome

Like in the Novex case, the Goa Government issued circulars stating that weddings did not require licenses. The High Court of Bombay (Goa Bench) struck down the circulars because: The government acted beyond its authority, and Such exemptions must come from legislation, not administrative orders. Again, the court did not interpret Section 52(1) (za) or decide whether wedding music is exempt. Since the circular was invalidated, licensing bodies continued demanding fees, claiming the exemption had been “rejected,” which is incorrect.

PURPOSE BEHIND THIS LAW

The purposive rule of interpretation helps us understand why Section 52(1) (za) was introduced. Before 1994, using music at weddings could be treated as copyright infringement, which was unfair and impractical given the cultural importance of wedding celebrations in India. To fix this problem, the government added this exception so that families could use music freely during marriage-related events. The legislative notes from the amendment make it clear that the law intended to protect wedding music, although some official documents were reportedly “untraceable” when requested through RTI. Still, the purpose remains clear through the amendment and its explanation.

The literal or dictionary meaning of key words in the provision also supports a wider interpretation. “Bona fide” means genuine, sincere, and without commercial intent. “Festivities” include celebrations and social gatherings. “Marriage ceremony” includes both religious or civil solemnization and the events surrounding it. Since the law uses the word “including,” the intention is to expand, not restrict, what counts as marriage festivities. Both literal and purposive interpretation support that all wedding-related functions fall under the exemption.

ARE WEDDINGS PUBLIC PERFORMANCES OR PRIVATE GATHERINGS?

Copyright law applies when music is performed for the public. Wedding celebrations, however, are private events attended only by invited guests, with no ticket sales or commercial gain. Courts like the Gujarat High Court in Devendrakumar Dwivedi v. State of Gujarat have confirmed that wedding functions are private, non-commercial gatherings and fall within the exception. Interestingly, industry bodies including IPRS, PPL, EEMA, and DPIIT agreed in a 2018 meeting that no music license is required for weddings. This further supports that wedding music is not intended to be controlled by copyright licensing.

CONCLUSION: Do Weddings Really Need a Music License Under Copyright Law?

The central question that naturally arises is: Should families in India be legally required to obtain a music license for playing songs during weddings and their associated festivities?
A careful reading of Section 52(1) (za) together with its explanation, legislative intent, and the private nature of wedding celebrations strongly suggests that the answer is no.

Section 52(1) (za) explicitly protects the use of music during marriage processions and all social festivities connected to a wedding, meaning that such acts do not constitute copyright infringement. Weddings in India are fundamentally private, invitation-based, non-commercial gatherings, where music is used purely for cultural, religious, and celebratory purposes. Since guests at these events do not constitute the “public” under copyright law, the act of playing music does not amount to a “public performance” requiring a license.

Furthermore, the legislature clearly intended to shield wedding-related events from unnecessary copyright liabilities when it introduced this provision in 1994. Both the literal meaning of the words used (“including,” “festivities,” “bona fide”) and the broader purpose of the amendment support an expansive exemption. The demand for licenses at weddings directly contradicts the intention of lawmakers and the cultural realities the provision was crafted to protect.

Therefore, unless Parliament rewrites the law to impose licensing obligations which it has not there is no legal basis to force families to pay royalty fees for music played at weddings. The current legal framework neither requires nor supports such demands.