The two terms ‘limitations’ and ‘exceptions’ are often used simultaneously and interchangeably in the copyright discourse as it is not possible or feasible to draw a clear demarcation between the two. They both refer to the permitted free uses of copyrighted works and non-voluntary licensing of rights over such works which are stipulated by copyright legislations in view of overriding public interest or other relevant justifications. There are many limitations on copyright protection such as limitations regarding subject-matter, duration, criteria of originality, requirement of fixation, and the like; however, these limitations, although they delineate scope of copyright protection, do not come within the ambit of the connotation acquired by the term ‘limitations and exceptions’ in copyright discourse. The limitations and exceptions to copyright and related rights function to strike a balance between the conflicting interests of owners and users of copyrighted works. National copyright laws have framed their respective limitations and exceptions according to the peculiar socio-economic and historical influences requiring the fashioning of such exceptions. It is often debated whether limitations and exceptions serve as defences for users or their right to make certain usages of copyrighted works. According to Andrew F. Christie, the fine line of distinction between exceptions and limitations is that exceptions are more specific than limitations. Exceptions are specifically carved out by the legislature to expunge liability of copyright infringement in the permitted acts so excepted from copyright owners’ exclusivity; exceptions may either be complete where the permitted actions are specifically enumerated, or partial where the permissibility of each action is to be decided as per laid down criteria.