Previous 30 / 49 Next

UNTERHALTER AJ [73] Finally, the evidence marshalled by Blind SA establishes that those with print and visual disabilities struggle to secure books in accessible format copies that they require for their education. Children, and especially poor children, cannot secure the textbooks they require. Others who are admitted to university cannot access the articles and books they need, a substantial impairment to the benefits of a higher education. The right of persons with print and visual disabilities to basic education, as set out in section 29(1)(a) of the Constitution, is thus plainly infringed. That is also so in respect of the right to further education protected in terms of section 29(1)(b) of the Constitution. Although this right is to be made progressively available and accessible by the state through reasonable measures, there can be little doubt that the relaxation of the requirement of authorisation in favour of persons with print and visual disabilities is a reasonable measure that the state can and must take. [74] In sum, I find that, subject to what follows as to the powers of the Minister to permit the reproduction of literary works in terms of section 13 of the Copyright Act, the constitutional rights of persons with print and visual impairments in terms of sections 9(2),35 10, 16(1)(b),36 29(1)(a) and (b)37 and 3038 have been infringed by the requirement of authorisation in the Copyright Act as it applies to make published literary works available to persons with print and visual disabilities in accessible format copies. No case was advanced by the Minister to show that the limitation of rights is justified. Indeed, the Minister did not oppose the application in the High Court, nor before us. 35 Section 9(2) states: “Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.” Section 16(1)(b) states that “[e]veryone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom to receive or impart information or ideas”. 36 37 In terms of section 29(1)(a) and (b)— “[e]veryone has the right (a) to a basic education, including adult basic education; and (b) to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible.” Section 30 states that “[e]veryone has the right to use the language and to participate in the cultural life of their choice, but no one exercising these rights may do so in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights”. 38 30

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

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 (linked Case Law): South Africa

Decision Date: 21 de set. de 2022

Case Status: Closed

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 de ago. de 2025

Primary Documents

BLIND SA 1.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

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

Primary Documents

Notifications