Introduction
In the realm of Indian classical music, where tradition and creativity intertwine, disputes over intellectual property can strike a discordant note. The case of Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar versus A.R. Rahman and others, adjudicated by the High Court of Delhi, represents a significant exploration of copyright law in the context of Hindustani classical music. This legal battle centers on the alleged infringement of a Dhrupad composition, "Shiva Stuti," by the song "Veera Raja Veera" in the film Ponniyin Selvan - 2. The plaintiff, a torchbearer of the Dagarvani Gharana, sought recognition of the moral and copyright rights of the Junior Dagar Brothers, claiming their original work was unlawfully used. This case study delves into the intricate details of the dispute, analyzing the factual background, procedural developments, legal issues, arguments, judicial reasoning, and the final decision, while highlighting the broader implications for copyright protection in traditional music.
Detailed Factual Background
Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, the plaintiff, is a distinguished Dhrupad vocalist and a scion of the Dagarvani Gharana, a lineage spanning 20 generations of Hindustani classical musicians. He is the son of Late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and nephew of Late Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar, collectively known as the Junior Dagar Brothers. The suit composition, "Shiva Stuti," is a Dhrupad piece composed in Raga Adana and Sultaal (a 10-beat rhythmic cycle), paying homage to Lord Shiva. The plaintiff asserts that this composition, created by the Junior Dagar Brothers in the 1970s, is an original work entitled to copyright protection. It was performed internationally, notably at the Royal Tropical Institute in Amsterdam in 1978, and later featured in the album Shiva Mahadeva by the Dagar Brothers, released by PAN Records.
The defendants include A.R. Rahman (Defendant No. 1), a globally acclaimed music composer who scored the music for Ponniyin Selvan - 2 (PS-2), where the impugned song "Veera Raja Veera" appears. Madras Talkies (Defendant No. 2) and Lyca Productions Private Limited (Defendant No. 3) are co-producers of the film, directed by Mani Ratnam. Tips Industries Limited (Defendant No. 4) holds the rights to the film’s audio and audio-visual content. Defendants No. 5 and 6, Shivam Bharadwaj and Arman Ali Dehlvi, are singers of the impugned song and former disciples of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleges that Defendants No. 5 and 6 shared "Shiva Stuti" with A.R. Rahman without authorization, leading to its incorporation into "Veera Raja Veera."
The controversy surfaced when the audio of "Veera Raja Veera" was released on March 28, 2023, followed by its audio-visual version on YouTube on April 8, 2023. The song was credited as a "Composition based on a Dagarvani Tradition Dhrupad," but initially omitted specific reference to "Shiva Stuti" or the Junior Dagar Brothers. The plaintiff, upon discovering this, contacted A.R. Rahman on April 13, 2023, alleging infringement of the moral and copyright rights in "Shiva Stuti." Despite assurances from Rahman, no resolution was reached, prompting a legal notice on April 20, 2023. Madras Talkies responded on April 24, 2023, denying the plaintiff’s claims. The film PS-2 was released in theaters on April 28, 2023, and subsequently on Amazon Prime, intensifying the dispute. The plaintiff filed the suit seeking injunctions and recognition of the Junior Dagar Brothers’ authorship, alongside an interim application (I.A. 21148/2023) for immediate relief.
Detailed Procedural Background
The suit, registered as CS(COMM) 773/2023, was first listed before the High Court of Delhi on October 20, 2023. The court issued summons to the defendants and notice in the interim application, I.A. 21148/2023. During this hearing, the plaintiff’s counsel, relying on a notation chart, argued that while the lyrics of "Veera Raja Veera" differed, its taal and musical composition mirrored "Shiva Stuti" in Raga Adana. The court played both compositions in open court and issued ad-interim directions, requiring A.R. Rahman to produce the raw recording of "Veera Raja Veera" and correct a typographical error in the YouTube credits (from "Dargavani" to "Dagarvani") within 48 hours.
On November 10, 2023, the court rejected an intervention application by Pandit Abhishek Kumar Mishra, deeming it irrelevant to the dispute. On March 5, 2024, the court proposed expediting the suit’s final adjudication with limited witness evidence, subject to a monetary deposit, but the parties did not agree, and the interim application proceedings continued. The court permitted the parties to submit audio and audio-visual recordings of the compositions and related works. Extensive hearings followed, with arguments concluding on February 6, 2025. The judgment, reserved on that date, was pronounced on April 25, 2025, addressing the interim relief sought by the plaintiff.
Issues Involved in the Case
The court framed three primary issues for consideration in the interim application:
Originality of the Suit Composition: Whether "Shiva Stuti" is an original musical work of the Junior Dagar Brothers, entitled to copyright protection.
Infringement by the Impugned Song: Whether "Veera Raja Veera" infringes the plaintiff’s copyright in "Shiva Stuti."
Entitlement to Relief: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interim relief, such as injunctions or mandatory directions for credit acknowledgment.
These issues required the court to navigate the complexities of copyright law in the context of Indian classical music, balancing tradition, originality, and moral rights.
Detailed Submission of Parties
Plaintiff’s Submissions
The plaintiff, represented by Mr. Neel Mason and Mr. Arjun Harkauli, emphasized the Dagarvani Gharana’s legacy and the plaintiff’s credentials as a Padma Shri awardee. They argued that "Shiva Stuti," composed by the Junior Dagar Brothers in the 1970s, is an original work, as evidenced by its performance in Amsterdam and inclusion in the Shiva Mahadeva album. The plaintiff asserted that the composition’s unique arrangement of swaras (notes) in Raga Adana, combined with its taal and syncopation, distinguished it as a protectable musical work under Section 2(p) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
The plaintiff contended that "Veera Raja Veera" replicated the musical structure of "Shiva Stuti," particularly in its asthayi (main section), as demonstrated by a notation chart comparing the two works. While acknowledging that Raga Adana and the Dagarvani style are not copyrightable, the plaintiff argued that the specific arrangement of notes, their dragging, and transitions between Aroha and Avroha constituted original expression. The plaintiff cited Ram Sampath v. Rajesh Roshan (2008 SCC OnLine Bom 370) to argue that even copying a small but vital part of a composition constitutes infringement, and Sulamangalam R. Jayalakshmi v. Meta Musicals (2000 SCC OnLine Mad 381) to emphasize protection against unauthorized use.
The plaintiff further alleged that Defendants No. 5 and 6, as his disciples, shared "Shiva Stuti" with A.R. Rahman without permission, and Rahman’s acknowledgment of Dagarvani inspiration was insufficient without crediting the Junior Dagar Brothers. The plaintiff sought interim relief, including a mandatory injunction to remove the infringing portion, a monetary deposit, or proper credit acknowledgment, arguing that ongoing dissemination of the song on various platforms necessitated urgent protection of moral and copyright rights.
Defendants’ Submissions
A.R. Rahman’s counsel, Mr. Amit Sibal, argued that the plaintiff failed to prove the originality of "Shiva Stuti." He contended that Dhrupad, rooted in the Samaveda and governed by strict compositional rules, leaves minimal room for copyrightable elements. The suit composition, being in Raga Adana, adhered to traditional patterns, and the plaintiff did not specify which elements were original. Sibal cited Raga Parichay by Harishchandra Shrivastava to show that the swaras in "Shiva Stuti" were standard to Raga Adana, also appearing in other ragas like Darbari Kanada and Jaunpuri, and in Amir Khusro’s 13th-century composition "Yaar-e-man Biya Biya."
The defendants argued that "Shiva Stuti" was a traditional composition, as evidenced by similar renditions by other artists, including the Gundecha Brothers and Pandit Uday Bhawalkar, none of whom were covered by the plaintiff’s alleged family settlement. They challenged the plaintiff’s shifting stance on ownership, from sole owner to co-owner, and the lack of evidence supporting the Junior Dagar Brothers’ authorship. On infringement, the defendants asserted that "Veera Raja Veera" was an original work blending Western and Indian musical elements, distinct from "Shiva Stuti." They relied on Marcus Gray v. Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson (28 F.4th 87, 9th Cir. 2022) to argue that commonplace musical elements are not copyrightable, and Apple Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation (35 F.3d 1435, 9th Cir. 1994) and R.G. Anand v. Delux Films ((1978) 4 SCC 118) to caution against monopolizing traditional music.
The defendants distinguished the plaintiff’s cited cases, noting that in Sulamangalam R. Jayalakshmi, the defendant used the plaintiff’s photographs, and in Ram Sampath, the plaintiff’s authorship was undisputed and supported by expert evidence, unlike the present case. They argued that granting relief would stifle creativity in Hindustani and Carnatic music, and the plaintiff’s delay in filing the suit after the film’s release weakened the case for interim relief.
Other Defendants’ Submissions
Counsel for Defendants No. 2 and 3 (Madras Talkies and Lyca Productions) expressed willingness for amicable resolution but maintained that the composition was provided by A.R. Rahman, and they relied on his assertions of originality. Defendant No. 4 (Tips Industries) echoed the lack of originality in "Shiva Stuti," arguing that the Dagarvani style was not copyrightable. Defendants No. 5 and 6, the singers, did not make distinct submissions, but their role as the plaintiff’s disciples was noted as facilitating access to the suit composition.
Intervenor’s Submission
The intervenor, Pandit Abhishek Kumar Mishra, sought to assist the court but was denied intervention, as the suit was not a public interest litigation. The court permitted written submissions on legal issues, though these did not significantly influence the judgment.
Rejoinder and Sur-rejoinder
In rejoinder, the plaintiff clarified that performances by other artists were authorized by the Dagar family and did not undermine the copyright claim. The plaintiff emphasized that commercial exploitation, as in PS-2, differed from non-commercial performances by disciples. The defendants reiterated that the plaintiff’s evidence was insufficient and the similarities were due to shared raga structures, not copying.
Detailed Discussion on Judgments Cited by Parties
The parties relied on several judicial precedents to bolster their arguments, each applied in specific contexts:
Ram Sampath v. Rajesh Roshan (2008 SCC OnLine Bom 370)
Cited by the plaintiff, this Bombay High Court decision addressed the infringement of a musical work where a six-second portion was copied and repeated multiple times. The court held that copying a small but essential part, the “catch part” or “hook,” constitutes actionable infringement, emphasizing that “what is worth copying is worth protecting.” The plaintiff used this to argue that the core of "Shiva Stuti" was replicated in "Veera Raja Veera." The defendants distinguished it, noting that the plaintiff’s authorship was undisputed in Ram Sampath, and expert evidence supported the claim, unlike the present case.Sulamangalam R. Jayalakshmi v. Meta Musicals (2000 SCC OnLine Mad 381)
The plaintiff cited this Madras High Court case, where the defendant’s unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s musical work and photographs was restrained. The court protected the plaintiff’s rights, reinforcing copyright in musical works. The plaintiff argued that similar protection applied to "Shiva Stuti." The defendants countered that the case involved clear misuse (version recording and photographs), unlike the present dispute over a composition’s originality.Marcus Gray v. Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson (28 F.4th 87, 9th Cir. 2022)
Cited by the defendants, this U.S. Ninth Circuit case applied the “scène à faire” doctrine, holding that commonplace musical elements (e.g., basic note sequences) are not copyrightable. The defendants used this to argue that "Shiva Stuti"’s swaras were standard to Raga Adana, precluding copyright. The court, however, found this less applicable, noting differences between Western and Indian classical music composition.Apple Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation (35 F.3d 1435, 9th Cir. 1994)
The defendants cited this U.S. case to caution against granting copyright monopolies over common elements, arguing that protecting "Shiva Stuti" would restrict creativity in Dhrupad music. The court acknowledged the principle but prioritized the specific arrangement’s originality.R.G. Anand v. Delux Films ((1978) 4 SCC 118)
This Supreme Court of India case, cited by the defendants, established that copyright protects original expression, not ideas or common themes. The defendants argued that "Shiva Stuti" lacked originality due to its reliance on traditional Dhrupad structures. The court, however, focused on the unique arrangement of swaras as protectable expression.Suresh Jindal v. Rizsoli Corriere Della Sera Prodzioni T.V. Spa (1991 Supp (2) SCC 3)
Cited by the court (not the parties), this Supreme Court case recognized the importance of crediting creative contributions, granting interim relief for acknowledgment despite the film’s foreign exhibition. The court applied this to justify directing credit for the Junior Dagar Brothers.Neha Bhasin v. Anand Raaj Anand ((2006) 132 DLT 196)
Referenced by the court, this Delhi High Court case upheld a singer’s right to be credited as the lead female singer, relying on Suresh Jindal. It supported the plaintiff’s claim for moral rights recognition.Fox Star Studios v. Aparna Bhat (2020 SCC OnLine Del 36)
Cited by the court, this Delhi High Court case granted interim relief for crediting a plaintiff’s contribution to a film, emphasizing moral rights. It reinforced the court’s decision to mandate acknowledgment.Francis Day and Hunter Ltd v. Bron ((1963) Ch 587)
Cited by the court, this UK case established that the “ear, not eye” is the primary judge in music copyright disputes, prioritizing aural impact for lay listeners. It guided the court’s infringement analysis.Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films (410 F.3d 792, 6th Cir. 2005)
Cited by the court, this U.S. case held that even a brief sample (e.g., three notes) can infringe if identifiable, supporting the finding that "Veera Raja Veera"’s similarity to "Shiva Stuti" constituted infringement.Trek Leasing, Inc. v. United States (66 Fed. Cl. 8, 2005)
Cited by the court, this U.S. case noted that using a work as a model or inspiration indicates copying, bolstering the finding that Rahman’s acknowledgment of Dagarvani inspiration suggested reliance on "Shiva Stuti."
Detailed Reasoning and Analysis of Judge
Justice Prathiba M. Singh’s judgment meticulously analyzed the issues, balancing the nuances of Indian classical music with copyright law principles. The court first addressed the originality of "Shiva Stuti." Recognizing the challenges of applying copyright to Indian classical music, the court noted that Dhrupad’s strict rules limit creative freedom compared to genres like Thumri. However, it held that the specific arrangement of swaras, their dragging, and transitions between Aroha and Avroha in "Shiva Stuti" constituted original expression. The court found prima facie evidence of the Junior Dagar Brothers’ authorship, supported by the 1978 Amsterdam performance and the Shiva Mahadeva album. The plaintiff’s claim of copyright transfer via an oral family settlement was deemed credible at the interim stage.
On infringement, the court rejected the defendants’ argument that similarities arose from Raga Adana’s discipline, noting that "Veera Raja Veera" was not based on Raga Adana but incorporated Western music elements. The court applied the tests of “comprehensive non-literal similarity” and “fragmented literal similarity,” finding that the asthayi of "Veera Raja Veera" was identical to "Shiva Stuti" in swaras, bhava (emotion), and aural impact. The notation chart and the defendants’ own comparison with Amir Khusro’s composition inadvertently highlighted this identity. The court emphasized the “ear, not eye” principle from Francis Day v. Bron, holding that a lay listener would perceive the works as similar, satisfying the infringement test from Ram Sampath and Bridgeport Music.
The court distinguished foreign precedents like Marcus Gray, noting that Hindustani classical music’s aural effect, rather than written notes, determines similarity. The deliberate selection of "Shiva Stuti" by Rahman, facilitated by the plaintiff’s disciples, further supported the finding of copying. The court dismissed the defendants’ reliance on other artists’ renditions, as these were authorized performances by Dagarvani disciples, not commercial exploitations challenging the plaintiff’s copyright.
Regarding relief, the court considered the film’s release and widespread dissemination, finding that restraining the song would disrupt an acclaimed production. Instead, it prioritized moral rights, drawing on Suresh Jindal, Neha Bhasin, and Fox Star Studios. The court held that crediting the Junior Dagar Brothers was a just remedy, as monetary damages could not compensate for the loss of recognition. The balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, as delayed acknowledgment would render the relief infructuous, causing irreparable harm to the original composers’ legacy.
Final Decision
The court allowed the interim application (I.A. 21148/2023) with the following directions:
On all OTT and online platforms, the credit slide for "Veera Raja Veera" must be updated from “Composition based on a Dagarvani Tradition Dhrupad” to “Composition based on Shiva Stuti by Late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and Late Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar.”
Defendants No. 1 to 3 (A.R. Rahman, Madras Talkies, and Lyca Productions) must deposit Rs. 2 crores in a Fixed Deposit with the Registrar General, subject to the suit’s final outcome.
Costs of Rs. 2 lakhs were awarded to the plaintiff, payable by Defendants No. 1 to 3 within four weeks.
The court clarified that these findings would not bind the suit’s final adjudication.
Law Settled in This Case
This case establishes several key principles in Indian copyright law, particularly for classical music:
Originality in Traditional Music: Specific arrangements of swaras, even within the constraints of a raga, can constitute original musical works eligible for copyright protection, provided they reflect unique creative expression.
Infringement Test for Music: The “ear, not eye” principle governs infringement in musical works, prioritizing aural similarity for lay listeners over technical note comparisons. Even a small but vital part of a composition, if copied, constitutes infringement.
Moral Rights Recognition: Moral rights, including the right to paternity, are enforceable through interim relief, such as mandatory credit acknowledgment, especially when monetary damages are inadequate.
Balancing Commercial and Creative Interests: Courts may favor non-disruptive remedies (e.g., credits) over injunctions in cases involving widely released works, ensuring protection of creative rights without unduly harming defendants.
This judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding India’s musical heritage while adapting copyright law to its unique cultural context.
