If you're a venue owner, event company or DJ asking whether you can still pay PPL — the short answer is yes, for now. The Delhi High Court's April 2025 ruling tried to route PPL's public-performance licensing through RMPL, the only registered copyright society for sound recordings in India. The Supreme Court has stayed that order while it hears PPL's appeal. Until the SC decides, the practical position has not changed: paying PPL directly remains the safe path for tracks under PPL labels.
That's the headline. The detail matters.
The case in one paragraph
Azure Hospitality Pvt Ltd, a restaurant operator, challenged PPL's authority to issue licences and collect royalties, arguing that under the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012, only a society registered under Section 33(3) of the Copyright Act may carry on the business of issuing or granting licences in respect of copyrighted works. PPL's own registration application, originally made in 2014, has been pending. RMPL — registered as CS/03/SOUNDRECORDING/18 on 18 June 2021 — is the only such society currently on the register for sound recordings.
What the Delhi High Court ruled (April 2025)
A single-judge bench of the Delhi HC accepted the Azure argument. The order directed that public-performance licensing in respect of PPL's repertoire should be channelled through RMPL, the registered society, rather than issued directly by PPL acting as an assignee. The court did not hold that PPL's underlying assignments from labels are invalid — only that the issuance of public-performance licences must come from a registered society.
What the Supreme Court stay means
PPL appealed and obtained a stay from the Supreme Court. A stay suspends the effect of the Delhi HC order pending the SC's own ruling. In practical terms:
- PPL continues to issue licences directly
- Venues, event organisers and DJs paying PPL today are not in violation of either court order
- The question of whether PPL needs Section 33(3) registration to do this remains open until the SC rules
What should venue owners and event companies do right now?
- Keep your existing PPL licence active. The SC stay protects payments made to PPL during the pendency of the appeal.
- Get the licence in writing. Make sure your PPL receipt includes the venue address, the licence period, the licence type (background or event — see the breakdown), and the labels covered. Keep it on file for at least the duration of the licence plus one year.
- Track which of your music actually comes from PPL labels. A PPL licence covers PPL's 450+ labels (T-Series, Sony Music, Universal Music India, Warner Music India, and others). It does not cover Novex repertoire — YRF, Zee Music, Tips, Shemaroo. If you play across both, you need both licences. Trakinfo's track search tells you which one applies.
- Don't pay both PPL and RMPL for the same recording. Until the SC rules, double-licensing creates a paper-trail dispute you don't want. Pay the body that actually represents the label of the track you're playing.
- Watch for a final SC judgment. If the SC affirms the Delhi HC, the licensing channel will shift to RMPL prospectively. Existing PPL licences should continue to be honoured for the period they covered.
Are PPL licences still enforceable?
Yes. The Supreme Court stay restores the status quo ante. A PPL licence remains enforceable as a contractual right between you and PPL during the stay. Whether PPL can sue an unlicensed venue under Section 33(3) is a separate question that the SC has not addressed in the stay — but for licensed venues, your position is unchanged.
How Trakinfo tracks this
Every track in our index with a PPL-covered label carries the active dispute flag — you'll see a small amber warning on those tracks until the Supreme Court rules. The flag tells you the underlying licensing channel is contested. It is not a recommendation to stop paying PPL. Check back as the case develops.
Find your track's licensing status now: Search any track →