Previous 5 / 11 Next

had rushed the referral of the CAB to this Court, suggesting that he did so in response to the initiation of this case and indicating that, if not for the pressure resulting from the urgent application, the referral would have been delayed. During the hearing, Blind SA abandoned its request for a punitive costs order. On the costs order sought, the President submitted that he was not a party to the order in Blind SA I and therefore his failure to decide on the CAB before the end of the suspension period of the declaration of invalidity and reading-in period did not contravene this Court’s order, nor his constitutional obligations. Thus, there was no basis for the punitive costs order against him, and further that that order is extraordinary and only granted where a litigant has acted in “a clear and indubitably vexatious and reprehensible manner” to indicate the extreme disapproval of the Court. The Minister submitted that while this Court has broad powers to grant just and equitable relief in terms of section 172(1)(b) to address this dispute, it must ensure that its reading-in remedy is constitutionally compliant with the legislative process and with the concerns raised in the President’s referral. Therefore, the Minister submitted that the just and equitable remedy would be reading in section 13A. The Media Monitoring Africa, an organisation that had been admitted as the friend of the Court, provided submissions on remedy. It submitted that the Court is in a unique position in comparison to Ex parte Minister of Home Affairs and Others: In re Lawyers for Human Rights v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (Ex Parte Minister of Home Affairs), which all parties rely on, in that Parliament did comply with this Court’s order in Blind SA I, however, the delay in signing the CAB resulted in the failure to cure the defect. The Court did not anticipate that the President’s failure to sign the CAB would delay or prevent the enactment of remedial legislation. It submitted that the Court has a constitutional obligation to grant 5

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: 7 de mai. de 2025

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Granted

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Injunction or Order 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 Name and URL: saflii

Collection

CIPIT

Date Updated: 18 de ago. de 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