Citation: Delhi High Court, CS(COMM) 104/2023, Judgment dated April 25, 2025

Introduction

In a landmark ruling, the single bench of Delhi High Court in Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman & Ors. addressed the interplay between copyright law and India’s rich heritage of Hindustani classical music. The case involved a copyright infringement suit filed by Veteran Indian classical singer Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, alleging that the song “Veera Raja Veera” from the Tamil film Ponniyin Selvan 2, composed by A.R. Rahman, infringed his original Dhrupad composition “Shiva Stuti.” The judgment, delivered by Justice Prathiba M. Singh, clarifies the copyrightability of musical works rooted in traditional frameworks and underscores the balance between preserving cultural heritage and fostering modern creativity.

Factual Background

Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, representing the legacy of the Junior Dagar Brothers, claimed that “Shiva Stuti,” a composition in the Dagarvani tradition of Dhrupad set in Raga Adana, was an original work protected under the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff alleged that “Veera Raja Veera,” featured in Ponniyin Selvan 2, reproduced the core musical structure of “Shiva Stuti” with minor lyrical and stylistic changes. The defendants, including A.R. Rahman and the film’s producers, argued that “Shiva Stuti” was a traditional composition based on public domain elements like ragas and taals, and thus not entitled to exclusive copyright protection.

Legal Issues

1. Whether a musical composition based on Hindustani classical music, adhering to the same raga and taal, qualifies as an “original work” under the Copyright Act, 1957.
2. Whether the defendants’ song “Veera Raja Veera” infringed the plaintiff’s copyright in “Shiva Stuti.”
3. The applicability of the “lay listener test” in determining copyright infringement in Indian classical music.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Delhi High Court meticulously analyzed the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, particularly Sections 13, 14, and 51, which govern copyright protection, exclusive rights, and infringement, respectively. Section 13(1)(a) extends copyright to original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, while Section 2(d)(ii) defines a “musical work” as a work consisting of music, including any graphical notation, but excluding lyrics or accompanying actions. The Court emphasized that originality under the Act requires a modicum of creativity, not novelty, as established in R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978).

Justice Singh held that compositions in Hindustani classical music, though bound by the structural rules of a raga, can be original due to the myriad creative choices available to composers within those rules.

The Court analogized this to literary works: just as innumerable books can be written using the same alphabet and grammar, countless musical compositions can emerge from the same swaras and raga principles. Thus, “Shiva Stuti” was deemed an original work entitled to copyright protection, including moral rights under Section 57, which safeguards the author’s right to paternity and integrity.

Applying the “lay listener test,” the Court found that “Veera Raja Veera” was aurally identical to “Shiva Stuti,” despite additional modern elements. The test, prioritizing the perception of an ordinary listener over technical notation, was deemed appropriate for Indian classical music, where aural tradition predominates. The Court further noted Rahman’s deliberate access to the Dagarvani tradition, as two singers involved were disciples of the plaintiff, reinforcing the finding of infringement.

Judgment

The Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from using “Veera Raja Veera” without permission, pending final adjudication. It ordered the defendants to:

1. Credit the Junior Dagar Brothers as the original composers in all future reproductions.
2. Deposit royalties with the Court for past usage.
3. Bear litigation costs.

The Court balanced commercial realities with the plaintiff’s rights, allowing continued use of the song subject to compliance with these conditions.

Significance

This judgment is a pivotal development in Indian copyright law, affirming that heritage songs and classical compositions can be protected as original works, provided they exhibit sufficient creativity. It strengthens the intellectual property rights of traditional musicians, ensuring their contributions are not misappropriated under the guise of public domain usage. The ruling also highlights the evolving nature of copyright law in India, as amended in 2012 to align with WIPO treaties, to safeguard cultural expressions in the digital age.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman & Ors. underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting India’s musical heritage while navigating the complexities of modern creativity. By applying the “lay listener test” and recognizing the originality of classical compositions, the Court has set a precedent that balances tradition with innovation, ensuring that heritage songs remain a living legacy rather than a free resource for appropriation.