Irreparable Injury Would Be Caused: Delhi High Court Directs AR Rahman To Pay ₹2 Cr In Copyright Case Filed By Ustad Dagar

The Delhi High Court has directed Indian Music Composer A.R. Rahman to pay Rs. 2 Crores in a copyright case filed by Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar with respect to a musical composition.

The Court was deciding a Suit filed by Ustad Dagar seeking permanent and mandatory injunction for recognition of the copyright in the musical composition ‘Shiva Stuti’ (suit composition) and to restrain the Defendants from utilizing the same as part of sound recording of the song “Veera Raja Veera” without obtaining authorisation and without attribution of moral rights of the original authors/composers of the suit composition.

A Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed, “… a perusal of the chronology of events that led to the filing of the present suit is relevant to the grant of relief. The Defendant No.1 who has earned global acclaim, initially did not give any recognition to the Plaintiff’s work. When the Plaintiff contacted the Defendant No.1, the acknowledgement was given – albeit reluctantly. Further correspondence ensued but there was no resolution. The Defendant Nos. 6 and 7 who sang the impugned song are disciples of the Plaintiffs. These facts demonstrate the intricate link to the Shiva Stuti and Veera Raja Veera musical compositions. The balance of convenience is thus in favour of the Plaintiff as, once the movie and song lose their audience by the time trial is concluded, the Plaintiff would have lost any possibility of effective acknowledgment. Irreparable injury thus would be caused to the creative rights and moral rights of the original composers who are no longer alive.”

The Bench emphasised that the Right to Paternity and Right to Integrity are the recognised Morals rights in a copyrighted work and the recognition of these rights as enshrined in Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 is the minimum acknowledgement that is required in respect of a copyrighted work.

Advocates Neel Mason and Arjun Harkauli appeared for the Plaintiff while Senior Advocates Amit Sibal, P.S. Raman, Advocates Saikrishna Rajagopal, Harsh Kaushik, and Ankit Kothari appeared for the Defendants. Advocate Akshat Agrawal appeared for the Intervenor.

Factual Background

The Plaintiff sought appropriate directions to the Defendants to give credit to the original authors/composers of the suit composition namely Late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and Late Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar during every playout of the impugned song across all modes and mediums including digital, internet, Over-The-Top (OTP) platforms, satellite, cable television etc. Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar i.e., the Plaintiff, is the son of Late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and nephew of Late Ustad N. Zahiruddin Dagar. The Plaintiff’s uncle and father sang as a duo (jugalbandi) in their family tradition of Hindustani classical music, known as the Dagarvani style/ Gharana. The Plaintiff’s uncle and father were popularly known as the “Junior Dagar Brothers”.

The Defendant i.e., A.R. Rahman is the music director of the film “Ponniyin Selvan – 2” (PS-2) and the other Defendants were Madras Talkies and Lyca Productions Private Limited i.e., the co-producers of the film. It was the case of the Plaintiff that the suit composition was written and composed by the Junior Dagar Brothers sometime in 1970s and thus, the suit composition is a work of joint authorship. The Junior Dagar Brothers are stated to be the first copyright holders in the suit composition. The facts leading up to the filing of suit are that allegedly the Defendants had shared the suit composition with A.R. Rahman for being utilized as a music composition for the film PS – 2, without the permission or authorisation of the Plaintiff.

Issues for Consideration

The following issues arose for consideration before the High Court –

(i) Whether the suit composition is an original musical work of the Junior Dagar Brothers?

(ii) Whether the impugned song infringes copyright of the Plaintiff in the suit composition?

(iii) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any relief?

Reasoning

The High Court in view of first issue, noted, “It is evident from the above discussion that copyright law in India has evolved and adapted to extend protection to traditional creative works including works based on Hindustani classical music. Therefore, there is no doubt that so long as the composition in Hindustani classical music is an original work of the composer, the same would be entitled to protection under the Act. The composer would also be entitled to exercise and claim all rights under the Act, including moral rights, qua the said composition.”

The Court said that a composition in Hindustani classical music would have to follow the structure and rules of a Raga to identify as a composition within the said Raga, however, the various possibilities and choices available to a composer within the structure of a Raga are several in number.

“There are millions of compositions which are composed, sung and rendered in different Ragas and in different traditions/Gharanas. However, each of the said compositions would be original compositions so long as they are not copied from an existing composition”, it added.

The Court further observed that there are thousands of composers in Hindustani Classical Music who compose lakhs of original musical compositions and each of such works would be original musical works; therefore, recognition of such works as ‘original’ would not deprive other composers from composing works in the same genre, same Raga or same Taal.

“… the mere fact that a particular composition is belonging to a specific genre on a particular Raga, in a particular tradition, does not mean that the composition cannot be original”, it also remarked.

The Court, therefore, held that musical works based on Hindustani Classical Music, though belonging to the same genre, same Raga and same Taal, can be original compositions and original musical works and that the suit composition Shiva Stuti is one such original composition which cannot be deprived of its originality.

“Thus, in the opinion of the Court prima facie the Plaintiff has established that the Junior Dagar Brothers are the authors of the suit composition which is an original composition”, it further held.

With respect to the second issue, the Court was of the view that the core of the impugned song Veera Raja Veera is not just inspired but is in fact identical in Swaras (notes), Bhava (Emotion) and Aural impact (impact on the ear) of the suit composition Shiva Stuti, from the point of view of a lay listener and hence, the Defendant’s composition infringes the Plaintiff’s rights in Shiva Stuti.

“Thus, the prayer for acknowledgement, sought for by the Plaintiff, is the minimum that can be granted once this Court is of the opinion that the work is original, the Junior Dagar brothers are the original authors and composers and when the Court has found that the Defendant’s work is an infringing work”, it said with regard to the third issue.

Conclusion and Directions

The Court held that the Plaintiff has thus succeeded in prima facie establishing its case for copyright infringement by the Defendants and that the balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and the Defendants would not suffer any irreparable harm if directions for recognition of the original authors of the suit composition is directed.

The Court, therefore, issued the following directions –

a. On all OTT and online platforms, in respect of the impugned song, the slide depicting the Credits, shall be replaced as under:

EXISTING SLIDE

“Composition based on a Dagarvani Tradition Dhrupad”

NEW SLIDE

“Composition based on Shiva Stuti by Late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and Late Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar”.

b. The Defendants shall deposit a sum of Rs. 2 crores which shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit in the account of the worthy Registrar General of the Court and the same shall be subject to the outcome of the trial of the suit. The said deposit shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

Moreover, the Court awarded Rs. 2 lakhs to the Plaintiff to be paid by the Defendants within four weeks.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Interim Injunction Application and issued necessary directions.

Cause Title- Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2907)

Appearance:

Plaintiff: Advocates Neel Mason, Arjun Harkauli, Aditya Mathur, Vihan Dang, and Ujjawal Bhargava.

Defendants: Senior Advocates Amit Sibal, P.S. Raman, Advocates Saikrishna Rajagopal, Harsh Kaushik, Ankit Kothari, Kaushik Moitra, Vaishnavi Rao, Anurag Tandon, Arunima Nair, Subhalaxmi Sen, Shailza Agarwal, Abhishek Grover, Sai Shravanam, Sidharth Chopra, Sneha Jain, Vivek Ayyagari, Kuber Mahajan, Anushree Rauta, Shwetank Tripathi, Harsh Prakash, Deepank Singhal, Anchal Raghuwanshi, Mohit Bangwal, Kunal Gupta, Rahul Dhote, Akshat Agrawal, Amaan Shreyas, Anukool Chawla, and Abhiti Vachher.

Click here to read/download the Judgment