Previous 4 / 11 Next

disabilities would be left without protection and would have to await the outcome of the referral application. Therefore, it was in the interests of justice for this Court to grant urgent direct access. Blind SA acknowledged that this Court does not have the power to extend a suspension period once it has lapsed, but argued that this Court may grant a just and equitable remedy in terms of section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution. Therefore, it requested that section 13A be kept in place until the current legislation is passed to cure the constitutional defect, and protect the rights of those with visual and print disabilities. Blind SA submitted that this Court is not obliged to read in section 13A as an interim measure, but may read in the version of clause 19D of the CAB as currently defined. This current version differs from the previous version of clause 19D, which was considered in Blind SA I, as Parliament had used this provision to cure the defect in the Act. They argued that clause 19D is “more user friendly and better advances the rights of persons with visual and print disabilities”. Therefore, a just and equitable remedy would be for the Court to revive section 13A, or to read in the current clause 19D in the CAB as it is not subject to the President’s referral, and is the Legislature’s chosen solution. Further, that this would also facilitate South Africa’s accession to the Marrakesh VIP Treaty, which has been put on hold indefinitely. Blind SA also sought a costs order against the President on a punitive scale, or to be jointly paid by the President and all respondents who opposed the relief sought. They further submitted that the President had not made it clear that he would be unable to make a decision on time, after numerous attempts to contact him. Had he informed the parties, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition or Parliament could have approached the Court before the expiry of the suspension period. Instead, Blind SA had to approach the Court, as those who were supposed to ensure the implementation of the order had failed to do so. Furthermore, that the President 4

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Blind SA v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others [2025]

Case Law

Country

South Africa

Country Location

Latitude: -28.58043087631903

Longitude: 24.820993917210945

Country Location (linked Case Law): South Africa

Decision Date: May 7, 2025

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Injunction, Order, or Motion Granted

Keywords

Court Name: Constitutional Court of South Africa

Case Number: CCT 300/24

Case Summary: Facts

Blind SA, a South African organisation advocating for the rights of blind and visually impaired persons, brought a constitutional challenge against provisions of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978. The organisation argued that the Act unlawfully restricted the ability of blind persons to access published works in accessible formats such as Braille, audio, and large print.

Because the Act required prior authorisation from copyright holders before works could be converted into accessible formats, blind persons faced systematic barriers to accessing education, information, and culture. Blind SA contended that this regime violated several constitutional rights, including the right to equality (s 9), dignity (s 10), education (s 29), freedom of expression (s 16), and access to information (s 32).

The respondent, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, opposed the petition, arguing that the Copyright Act balanced the rights of authors with public interest, and that reforms were already underway through draft legislation.

Issue

The central issue before the Constitutional Court was whether the Copyright Act’s failure to provide an express exception for the reproduction of works in accessible formats constituted an unjustifiable limitation of the constitutional rights of persons with visual disabilities.

Additionally, the Court had to determine whether it had the power to grant “reading-in” relief — namely, to modify the Copyright Act by inserting provisions that immediately allow the making and distribution of accessible format copies without requiring copyright-holder permission.

Rule

The case was decided under the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of South Africa (1996), particularly:

Section 9 (Equality): Guarantees equal protection and benefit of the law.

Section 10 (Dignity): Affirms the inherent dignity of every person.

Section 29 (Education): Ensures the right to basic and further education.

Section 16 (Freedom of Expression) and Section 32 (Access to Information): Protect access to knowledge and information.

The Court also relied on international norms, including the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled, which South Africa had signed but not ratified.

Analysis

The Constitutional Court emphasised that blind and visually impaired persons had suffered decades of systemic exclusion from access to knowledge due to copyright barriers. By conditioning access on obtaining copyright-holder consent, the Act perpetuated discrimination, undermined dignity, and entrenched inequality.

The Court found that the absence of an accessible format exception in the Copyright Act was unconstitutional, as it unjustifiably limited the rights of persons with disabilities. The Minister’s argument that legislative reform was pending did not absolve the Court of its constitutional duty to grant immediate relief.

On the remedy, the Court held that reading-in was appropriate to cure the constitutional defect. The Court thus inserted provisions into the Copyright Act allowing persons with visual disabilities, or organisations acting on their behalf, to make and distribute accessible format copies of works without prior authorisation, provided this was done on a non-profit basis and solely for the benefit of persons with disabilities.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that the Copyright Act violated the constitutional rights of blind and visually impaired persons by failing to provide for accessible format exceptions. The impugned provisions were declared unconstitutional, and the Court read in new sections to immediately allow for the making, reproduction, and distribution of accessible format copies.

Case Significance: The Constitutional Court adopted provisional remedies for the blind to have access to copyright

Available in

English

Related Caselaw (self)

Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and Others 2022

Related Law

Source URL: saflii

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: Aug 18, 2025

Primary Documents

Blind SA.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Blind SA v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others [2025]

Primary Documents

Notifications