Delhi High Court: In an appeal under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 and Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’), challenging the order dated 25-4-2025 wherein the Single Judge of the Court had directed the defendants including A.R. Rahman to recognise the contribution of Junior Dagar Brothers in the song ‘Veera Raja Veera’, the Division Bench of Om Prakash Shukla* and C. Hari Shankar, JJ, held that the song ‘Shiva Stuti’, which the Junior Dagar Brothers claimed was substantially copied and used in the song ‘Veera Raja Veera’, was not the original composition of or authored by the Junior Dagar Brother.
Thus, the Court quashed the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
Background
The plaintiff in the original suit, Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, is a Padma Shri awardee and a distinguished exponent of the Dagarvani style of Dhrupad classical music. He had filed a civil suit seeking relief of permanent and mandatory injunction for recognition of copyright in the musical composition titled ‘Shiva Stuti’ (‘the composition’) against the defendants in the orginal suit A.R. Rahman (Defendant 1) an acclaimed music composer, along with Madras Talkies (Defendant 2), Lyca Productions Pvt Ltd. (Defendant 3), Tips Industries Ltd. (Defendant 4), and vocalists Shivam Bharadwaj (Defendant 5) and Arman Ali Dehlvi (Defendant 6). An interlocutory application has also been filed to give credit to the original composers namely Late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and Late Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar (collectively known as the ‘Junior Dagar Brothers’) during every playout of the composition across all modes and mediums including digital, internet, Over-The-Top platforms, satellite, cable television etc.
The plaintiff also sought to restrain the defendants from utilizing the composition as part of sound recording of the song ‘Veera Raja Veera’ without obtaining authorization from the plaintiff without attribution of moral rights to the Junior Dagar Brothers who claim to be the original authors of the composition.
It was the case of the plaintiff that the song ‘Veera Raja Veera’ featured in the Tamil movie ‘Ponniyin Selvan-II’ used substantial and protectable portions of the musical composition ‘Shiva Stuti’. The plaintiff had approached A.R. Rahman for recognition of moral rights of the plaintiff as well as for grant of a non-exclusive license for the plaintiff’s work. However, all claims of the plaintiff had been ignored by A.R. Rahman and subsequently rejected by Madras Talkies
The Court in the impugned judgment had observed that even though the composition had been based on Raga Adana, the manner in which the swaras have been picked and combined with different swaras, aroha and avroha are all unique. The Court had held the composition to be original since it had been composed in a specific taal-sultaal (10 beats) instead of the chautaal (12 beats) common for compositions in Raga Adana. The Court further relied on the ‘lay listener test’ and highlighted that in classical music especially, what counts is not a technical note-by-note analysis but rather the entire oral impression. Thus, the Court had held that that the core of the impugned song ‘Veera Raja Veera’ was not just inspired but was in fact identical in swaras, bhava and aural impact of the ‘Shiva Stuti’.
The Court had further concluded that the structural, melodic, and aural similarities between ‘Shiva Stuti’ and ‘Veera Raja Veera’ went beyond what could be explained by common adherence to the idiom of Raag Adana’s alone, and that A.R. Rahman had access and opportunity to reproduce these elements, especially since two of the plaintiffs’ disciples, i.e., vocalists Shivam Bharadwaj and Arman Ali Dehlvi , were involved in recording the impugned song.
Therefore, the Court had directed that:
-
All public credits for ‘Veera Raja Veera’ be updated to identify the Junior Dagar Brothers as the composers of the source material;
-
A.R. Rahman , Madras Talkies and Lyca Productions Pvt Ltd were directed to deposit Rs 2 crore with the Court as security pending trial; and
-
Costs of Rs 2 lakh be paid to the plaintiff by A.R. Rahman , Madras Talkies and Lyca Productions Pvt Ltd.
The instant appeal was filed by A.R. Rahman assailing the impugned judgement and the directions passed under the same.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court formulated two questions for deliberation:
1. Whether the composition was authored/composed by the plaintiff
The Court noted that the Junior Dagar Brothers were the first performers of the composition as the first fixation of the composition was done in 1978 in a concert in Amsterdam. However, the Court stated that while the Juinor Dagar Brothers through their material on record could claim performer rights under Section 38 of the Copyright Act, 1994, they could not establish authorship. The Act provides a distinction between performers’ rights and authorship rights where a person may be a performer of a work without being its creator. Performance, however skillful, does not amount to any creation.
The Court further noted that to infer authorship solely on the basis of no contrary material would be erroneous as any performer thus can claim authorship by first performing and publishing an original composition. This is problematic specifically in context of Indian classical music, where the music is transmitted orally through generations without formal documentation or any notations. If such a presumption were accepted, it would enable any performer to take any old compositions into their authorship by merely recording them and publishing them first, thereby copyrighting what is unprotected and is in public domain and therefore enjoying the rights under copyright without creating anything.
The Court observed that the impugned judgment treated the fixation of performance on the CDs as fulfilling the requirement of fixation and used it as a ground to prima facie hold the plaintiff as authors of the composition. The Court stated that while fixation of performance is a requirement for claiming copyright protection and is one of the grounds for claiming authorship, it would be erroneous to rely on mere performance or fixation to establish copyright especially in traditional Indian music, where work is transmitted orally.
The Court further stated that even though the Junior Dagar Brothers performed the composition on stage, there was no direct attribution to them as composers, since there were no written notations, continuous attribution, contemporaneous documentation of creation, etc. proving that the Dagar Brothers originally created the melody or were the composers.
The Court also discussed A.R. Rahman’s contention that the composition was based on and is a part of the broader Dagarvani/Dhrupad tradition and not an exclusive composition of the plaintiff, and opined that it would be contrary to the objective of copyright law to allow the plaintiff to claim exclusive authorship and monopolise such a work as it would provide exclusive ownership rights over what is purported to be a Dagarvani/Dhrupad cultural work. The Court further stated that it couldn’t be oblivious to the fact that Indian classical music preserves lineage by passing on knowledge from Guru to shishya and naturally a shishya emulate their Guru and their styles, cultural norms relating to use. Thus, the appropriation and transmission of works in the realm of Indian classical music stand on a fundamentally different footing from that of an ordinary literary, dramatic or artistic work.
Therefore, the Court held that the song ‘Shiva Stuti’ is a part of common Dagarvani tradition as it completely undisputedly attributed to it and therefore, the Junior Dagar Brothers were not the authors of the composition.
2. Whether the composition is the original composition of the plaintiff
The Court stated that the point of examination is whether the composition of the defendants was the product of their independent creation involving a minimal degree of creativity, as evidenced by their diary notes and musical arrangement, and correspondingly, whether the plaintiff’s composition reflects his own independent creative labour in the adaptation and orchestration of the same traditional material. Therefore, the standard of originality does not demand novelty in the patent law sense, but only an independent creative contribution, which must be tested in both the defendants’ and the plaintiff’s works.
The Court noted that in the Hindustani classical music every composition is bound by the rules of a Raga in terms of sequencing, permissible ornamentation, and evocation of particular rasa or emotions, and it is inevitable that multiple compositions will contain overlapping features. Relying on the case of R.G Anand v. Delux Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118, wherein the Supreme Court had held that violation of the copyright in an idea, subject matter, themes, plots or historical or legendary facts is confined to the form, manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the copyrighted work, the Court opined that the foundational grammar of a Raga belongs to the public domain and cannot form the basis for copyright protection.
The Court further stated that if originality was to be inferred merely from the dragging of a single swara or a minor modulation within the confines of a Raga, such recognition would unduly extend copyright protection to minimal variations and risk monopolising essential elements of the public domain. Thus, it is necessary to exclude such common elements and focus on whether there is a substantial and material similarity in the original expression, arrangement, or presentation, thereby stifling the improvisational essence of classical music.
The Court thus, concluded that there was no merit in the plaintiff’s claim for ownership and since the claim of ownership was rejected, there was no requirement of deliberating on the question of originality or infringement.
The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the impugned judgment.
[A.R. Rahman v. Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, F.A.O. (OS) (COMM) No. 86 of 2025, decided on 24-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Saikrishna Rajagopal, Sneha Jain, Vivek Ayyagari, Kuber Mahajan, Akshat Agrawal, Vaishnavi Rao, Arunima Nair, Advocates
For the Respondent: Neel Mason, Arjun Harkauli, Vihan Dang, Ujjawal Bhargava, Abeer Shandilya, Gautam S. Raman, Deepank Singhal, Gaurav Dhingra, Anukool Chawla, Ankit Kothari, Advocates
