Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Friday, granted interim relief to Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, asserting his copyright in the composition ‘Shiva Stuti’ against unauthorized use by A.R. Rahman and others in the movie Ponniyin Selvan – 2. The court issued an interim injunction, recognizing Dagar’s moral and creative rights in the work.

The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held, “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. Hence the Defendant’s composition infringes the Plaintiff’s rights in Shiva Stuti”. 

Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, the Plaintiff, sought a permanent and mandatory injunction to recognize his copyright in the composition ‘Shiva Stuti’. The suit also aimed to restrain the Defendants, including A.R. Rahman, Madras Talkies, and Lyca Productions, from using the composition without authorization and attribution. 

Dagar emphasized that Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, a Padma Shri awardee and a distinguished Dhrupad vocalist, was the rightful holder of the composition's copyright. Dagar asserted that while the composition was based on Raga Adana, it was an original creation of the Junior Dagar Brothers, distinct from any pre-existing work. The Defendants argued that the composition was in the public domain, as it was based on traditional Dhrupad elements and lacked originality.

The court, after considering the submissions, identified three key issues for determination:
1. Whether the composition "Shiva Stuti" was an original musical work of the Junior Dagar Brothers.
2. Whether the impugned song "Veera Raja Veera" infringed the Dagar’s copyright in the composition.
3. Whether the Dagar was entitled to any relief.

In its analysis, the court recognized that Hindustani classical music, traditionally transmitted orally, could still qualify for copyright protection. Despite being based on traditional Raga Adana, compositions could be original if they incorporated unique elements, as was the case with the suit composition. Evidence presented by Dagar, including a 1978 recording and a family settlement document from 1994, confirmed that the Junior Dagar Brothers were the original authors of the composition.

“The fact that the impugned song, at the beginning i.e., during the alaap as also when the actual composition/song begins, is so similar to the suit composition to lay listener, prima facie establishes that the impugned song is substantially similar to the Plaintiff’s suit composition”, the court noted. 

The court further addressed the issue of infringement, finding that the impugned song ‘Veera Raja Veera’ mirrored substantial parts of Dagar’s work. Despite the Defendants’ claims that the song was an original creation blending various musical traditions, the court concluded that the musical structure of the song was closely similar to Dagar’s composition, especially in terms of its aural effect. This constituted copyright infringement.

“In Hindustani Classical music, when a musical composition is composed, the notes may or may not be written. It is the sound of the music or the aural effect of the music that would be the test insofar as Hindustani Classical Music is concerned. The musical composition may or may not have identical notes, but the aural effect of the notes could be the same for a lay listener”, the court remarked. 

Given Dagar’s successful claim for infringement, the court considered the impact of the case on the success of the film and the recognition of Dagar’s moral rights. The court noted that Dagar had not received appropriate acknowledgment as the original author of the composition, which was a critical violation of his moral rights.

“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 court added. 

As a result, the court ordered Defendants 1 to 3 to deposit Rs. 2 crores in a Fixed Deposit with the Registrar General, pending the outcome of the trial. Additionally, Dagar was awarded Rs. 2 lakhs in costs to be paid within four weeks. The court also granted the interim injunction, which required the Defendants to cease using the composition without proper attribution, though the injunction did not bind the final judgment.

For Plaintiff: Advocates Neel Mason, Arjun Harkauli, Aditya Mathur, Vihan Dang and Ujjawal Bhargava
For Defendant: Senior Advocates Amit Sibal and PS Raman with Advocates Kaushik Moitra, Vaishnavi Rao, Anurag Tandon, Arunima Nair, Subhalaxmi Sen, Shailza Agarwal, Abhishek Grover, Sidharth Chopra, Sneha Jain, Vivek Ayyagari, Kuber Mahajan, Saikrishna Rajagopal, Sidharth Chopra, Sneha Jain, Vivek Ayyagari, Harsh Kaushik, Anushree Rauta, Shwetank Tripathi, Harsh Prakash, Deepank Singhal, Anchal Raghuwanshi, Mohit Bangwal, Kunal Gupta, Rahul Dhote, Akshat Agrawal, Amaan Shreyas, 
Case Title: Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v A.R. Rahman (2025:DHC:2907)