Précédent 40 / 49 Next

UNTERHALTER AJ order a suspension of any declaration of invalidity that it might make, but should rather order that section 19D, presently before Parliament as clause 20 of the CAB, should be “read-in” to the Copyright Act, with immediate effect. Professor Dean marshalled reasons why we should not do so. He favoured regulations that the Minister should be required to promulgate. I do not consider that section 13 of the Copyright Act, for the reasons given, saves the Act from constitutional invalidity. Whether the draft regulations proposed by him have any residual remedial utility is a matter to which I shall return. [99] This Court has had occasion to effect an interim reading-in remedy that enlarged the reach of a statutory offence so as to extend the protection of legislation that was otherwise constitutionally defective.45 In AmaBhungane,46 this Court went further still. It weighed the need for an effective interim remedy and the need to respect the separation of powers. It concluded that the egregious and intrusive violation of privacy rights required immediate redress and ordered that during the period of suspension, an additional and extensive provision would be deemed to be included in the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication – Related Information Act47 (RICA). [100] Blind SA urges us to follow suit, and to deem section 19D to form part of the Copyright Act. Blind SA makes the following submissions. First, section 19D is Parliament’s answer to the constitutional defect that we have confirmed. It remains so. Second, section 19D was not the subject of presidential concern that led the President to send the CAB back to Parliament. Finally, section 19D is Parliament’s effort to bring the Copyright Act in line with the Marrakesh Treaty. Neither the Speaker of the National Assembly, nor the Minister opposes the reading-in that is sought by Blind SA. To the extent that section 19D requires supplementation, this Court may do so, not least 45 Centre for Child Law v Media 24 Ltd [2019] ZACC 46; 2020 (4) SA 319 (CC); 2020 (3) BCLR 245 (CC) at paras 114-126. 46 AmaBhungane Centre for Investigative Journalism NPC v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services [2021] ZACC 3; 2021 (3) SA 246 (CC); 2021 (4) BCLR 349 (CC) at paras 136-149. 47 70 of 2002. 40

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

● ● ●

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

Case Law

Country

South Africa

Country Location

Latitude: -28.58043087631903

Longitude: 24.820993917210945

Country Location (Lié Case Law): South Africa

Decision Date: 21 sept. 2022

Case Status: Affaire Résolue

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Judgement in Favour of Plaintiff
Motion Granted

Keywords

Access to Information
Public Interest

Court Name: Constitutional Court of South Africa

Case Number: Case CCT 320/21

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: Copyright act of 1979 s 6 and s 7 declared unconstitutional.

Available in

English

Related Law

Source Name and URL: saflii

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: 18 août 2025

Documents principaux

BLIND SA 1.pdf
English
Télécharger Vue

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Sélectionner le paragraphe cible3

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

Documents principaux

Notifications