New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Wednesday set aside a copyright infringement case against music composer A.R. Rahman, saying that Indian classical music goes back centuries and has long relied on oral transmission and creative reinterpretation.
The ruling is a big win for Rahman and the producers of the Tamil film, Ponniyin Selvan–II, who had earlier been directed to pay Rs 2 crore for copyright infringement over the movie’s popular song, Veera Raja Veera.
The case over the ownership of the song in the Mani Ratnam film arose when classical musician and Padma Shri awardee Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar approached the court, saying the song had been copied from his father and uncle’s composition, Shiva Stuti.
The father-uncle duo—the late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and Ustad N. Zahiruddin Dagar —were famously known as the Junior Dagar Brothers.
However, the court rejected his claim over Shiva Stuti, saying that there was no evidence that the late Dagar Brothers were the authors of this composition.
The bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla said the case wasn’t an “ordinarily couched litigation” relating to infringement of copyright in musical works and ruled that there was “no prima facie evidence of the Junior Dagar Brothers being the authors of the suit composition Shiva Stuti”.
The latest ruling outlined the difference between the performance of a work and authoring it, saying that while there was evidence of the Dagar Brothers performing the composition at the Royal Tropical Institute in Amsterdam in June 1978, it could not be said that they were the original authors of the same.
The court acknowledged the concept of the “guru-shishya parampara” in Indian classical music in which shishyas (disciples) imitate their gurus (teachers) and compositions evolve as they are passed down generations, oftentimes orally.
“In this system, neither any guru-shishya nor any single artist can claim absolute ownership over a particular composition or a raga or a musical motif,” the court said.
At the same time, the court also acknowledged the irony that this concept was fundamentally at odds with the copyright law, which assumes a clearly identifiable creator and a fixed form of expression for copyright protection.
Why the court set aside the order
The 24 September ruling overturns an April order by a single judge of the Delhi High Court directing the Oscar-winning composer and Ratnam’s production house, Madras Talkies, to pay Rs 2 crore for copyright infringement.
The court said in its 93-page ruling that there was “no direct attribution” to the Dagar Brothers as composers of Shiva Stuti as there were no written notations, continuous attributions, or contemporaneous documentation to prove they composed the melody.
The court also looked at their 1996 album Shiva Mahadeva and noted that it did not credit the Junior Dagar Brothers as copyright-holders or authors of the Shiva Stuti composition.
“This suggests that even the album producers treated the work as a traditional or common work of performance, not as an original composition of the Junior Dagar Brothers,” the court said.
The court also highlighted that musicians and writers in ancient India composed and authored for name, fame and recognition, as opposed to simply commercialising their works. It added that back then there was “no concept of copyright”, but wth the advent of science, technology and the printing press, copyright disputes became inevitable.
The fundamental question in this case became the “authorship” of the composition, which led the court to note that it’s a core part of copyright laws under which initial enforceable rights over a creative work are granted only to the author.
“Copyright arises once work of author is original under Section 13(1) of the Act. However, unlike patents or trademarks, copyright does not compulsorily require registration of the copyright as its existence is stemmed directly to the act of creation,” the court said.
The ruling emphasised that practical enforcement of copyright, especially in genres like Indian classical music, can be difficult as works are transmitted orally.
The court said Shiva Stuti is a perfect example of these challenges, as its authorship is tied to its first performance and oral tradition rather than formal written composition.
This is critical in Indian classical music, where compositions are orally transmitted, rather than through formal notation, registration, it added.
Significantly, Rahman argued that granting protection to the classic musical composition in this case would promote a monopoly, adversely affecting the artists and composers of Hindustani classical and Carnatic music.
Rahman also said that the basis for Dagar’s claim was an alleged oral family settlement of 1994, supported by a letter signed by three individuals, while ignoring other Dagar family members who had also performed ‘Shiva Stuti’ in a similar form.
Dagar’s case
Dagar’s plea sought a permanent injunction to recognise the copyright, which would prevent the unauthorised use of his father’s and uncle’s creative work. A permanent injunction is a final court order requiring a person to do or refrain from doing a specific action.
He specifically sought to restrain Rahman and the makers of Ponniyin Selvan–II, Madras Talkies, from using the composition in the song, Veera Raja Veera, without his authorisation, and without attributing the moral rights of the original authors or composers.
He also sought credit for the Junior Dagar Brothers whenever the song is played across different media, including digital, internet, OTT platforms, satellite and cable television.
What is a copyright?
A copyright is a legal right given to creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, as well as to producers of cinematographic films and sound recordings.
Simply put, it is a bundle of rights, including reproduction, public communication, adaptation and translation, aimed at protecting such creative works, which are deemed the creator’s intellectual property (IP) under the Copyright Act, 1957.
It can be infringed upon if a substantial part of a copyrighted work is used without authorisation. In cases of copyright infringement, the copyright owner can take legal action and is also entitled to remedies, such as injunctions and damages.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)