Delhi High Court: Musical Works Based on Hindustani Classical Music Can Be Original; Orders Credit to Dagar Brothers in AR Rahman's 'Veera Raja Veera' Song
Sanchayita Lahkar
In a significant interim order concerning copyright protection in Indian classical music, the High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh held that musical works based on Hindustani Classical Music, even if composed within the same Raga and Taal, can constitute original compositions entitled to protection. The Court directed that the impugned song’s credits across all OTT and online platforms must be corrected to specifically attribute the original composition to Late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and Late Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar.
The plaintiff, a Dhrupad vocalist from the Dagarvani tradition, initiated the suit seeking recognition of copyright and moral rights in the composition titled "Shiva Stuti." The plaintiff asserted that the Junior Dagar Brothers, comprising his father and uncle, composed "Shiva Stuti" in Raga Adana with Sultaal (a ten-beat cycle), and first performed it publicly at the Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, on 22 June 1978. This performance was later recorded and published by PAN Records under the title "Shiva Mahadeva by the Dagar Brothers".
Following the deaths of the Junior Dagar Brothers in 1989 and 1994, an oral family settlement allegedly transferred all rights in the suit composition to the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed to have continued performing the composition and training his students using it.
The plaintiff alleged that Defendants No. 5 and 6, who were former disciples, shared the composition with Defendant No. 1, music director A.R. Rahman, for use in the film "Ponniyin Selvan – 2" ("PS-2"), without authorization. The impugned song, titled "Veera Raja Veera," was released in audio format on 28 March 2023 and as an audiovisual recording on 8 April 2023. The credits initially described the song as "Composition based on a Dagarvani Tradition Dhrupad".
Upon discovering the use of the composition, the plaintiff issued a letter dated 13 April 2023 to Defendant No. 1 and Mr. Mani Ratnam, alleging infringement of copyright and moral rights and proposing amicable resolution. A follow-up legal notice was sent on 20 April 2023, offering a non-exclusive license. Defendant No. 2 (Madras Talkies) responded on 24 April 2023, denying the plaintiff’s claims.
Subsequently, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking, among other reliefs, a permanent and mandatory injunction, attribution to the Junior Dagar Brothers, and restraint against the exploitation of the suit composition without authorization.
The plaintiff placed on record CDs titled "Shiva Mahadeva by the Dagar Brothers" and "Dagar – The Pathway," inlay cards, and contracts with PAN Records and Navras Records to establish authorship and ownership of the suit composition. An agreement dated 1 July 1995 permitted PAN Records to manufacture and sell recordings of the Junior Dagar Brothers' performances, and another agreement dated 27 March 2007 assigned publishing rights to Navras Records while retaining authorship rights.
The defendants countered that "Veera Raja Veera" was inspired by multiple ragas, including Jaunpuri, Darbari Kanada, and Bihag, and was not a direct copy of "Shiva Stuti." Defendant No. 1 contended that Indian classical music compositions, especially those based on ragas, are part of the public domain and that only unique expressions are protectable. Defendant No. 1 relied on expert reports to assert that different beats and taals were used and that no substantial copying had occurred.
Defendant No. 2 argued that Madras Talkies had exercised due diligence in appointing a reputable composer and that any claims were belated since the film and soundtrack had been released months prior to the filing of the suit. Defendant No. 3 aligned its submissions with those of Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 4, representing Tips Industries, also adopted similar arguments.
Defendants No. 5 and 6 submitted that they had no commercial role in the impugned song’s production and refuted the allegation of unauthorized sharing of the suit composition.
The plaintiff, in rejoinder, emphasized that while ragas were public domain, the particular arrangement, structure, and rendition of "Shiva Stuti" exhibited sufficient originality to merit protection. The plaintiff insisted that the impugned song bore a striking similarity in melodic progression, mood (bhava), and structure to the suit composition, warranting protection even under the "thin copyright" doctrine.
The plaintiff further placed reliance on Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which protects the moral rights of attribution and integrity, arguing that non-attribution amounted to mutilation and distortion of the original work’s integrity.
In light of the submissions, the Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the suit composition is an original musical work of the Junior Dagar Brothers?
- Whether the impugned song "Veera Raja Veera" infringes copyright in the suit composition?
- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interim or final relief?
The Court heard extensive arguments and reviewed notations, expert affidavits, performances, contracts, and case law from Indian and international jurisdictions before proceeding to make findings.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh observed that "musical works in Indian classical music traditionally lack fixation" and "the question of originality must be evaluated in that context." It was stated that "while a musical work can attain copyright if sufficient skill and judgment is exercised, mere adherence to a raga or tradition does not qualify for protection."
The Court recorded: "In the realm of Hindustani classical music, ragas serve as a framework and are public domain. Therefore, a claim of copyright must rest on unique musical expressions and not merely on usage of notes prescribed within a raga."
Justice Singh further stated: "Although the Junior Dagar Brothers did not formally write down the notations of Shiva Stuti, the recording of their performance satisfies the requirement of fixation under the Copyright Act, 1957."
Referring to the notion of public domain elements, the Court observed: "The basic swaras and melodic frameworks drawn from the public domain cannot be monopolized by any one artist or lineage."
On infringement, the Court recorded: "In cases of musical copyright infringement, the correct approach is the 'ear test' and not merely expert musical analysis. The primary consideration is the perception of an average listener and not the theoretical dissection by experts."
Justice Singh stated: "It is not necessary that an entire musical work be copied. Even if a vital and substantial part is lifted, infringement may occur."
The Court recorded: "The impugned song acknowledges Dagarvani tradition as an inspiration. The use of the musical structure of Shiva Stuti cannot be said to be coincidental and bears a strong link to the plaintiff's lineage."
Justice Singh observed: "The impugned song, although incorporating elements of other ragas such as Jaunpuri, Darbari Kanada, and Bihag, is prima facie found to have been substantially influenced by the musical structure of Shiva Stuti."
The Court stated: "The concept of thin copyright protection would apply to classical compositions based heavily on traditional frameworks. However, the individual creativity of blending notes, taals, and musical expressions cannot be ignored."
Justice Singh further observed: "Although Dhrupad style compositions share common features, distinct expression of ideas through musical arrangement can still qualify for protection."
Regarding delay in filing the suit, the Court recorded: "The release of the movie and its wide dissemination on OTT platforms notwithstanding, the balance of convenience lies with the plaintiff considering the importance of preserving moral rights."
It was also noted: "The defendants' argument that attribution had already been given by mentioning Dagarvani tradition was insufficient when the specific authors — Junior Dagar Brothers — were not acknowledged."
Justice Singh concluded: "The plaintiff has succeeded in establishing a prima facie case for attribution and acknowledgment, warranting interim protection of moral rights."
The Court summed up: "Protection of the cultural and musical heritage embedded in Indian classical compositions must be harmonized with the principles of copyright law, ensuring a careful balance between public domain elements and individual creative contributions."
The Court directed:"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."
The Court further directed: "The Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 shall also deposit a sum of Rs. 2 crores which shall be kept in a Fixed Deposit in the account of the worthy Registrar General of this 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."
Additionally, the Court ordered: "Costs of Rs. 2 lakhs are also awarded to the Plaintiff, to be paid by the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 within four weeks."
"The interim injunction application being I.A.21148/2023 is, accordingly, allowed in the above terms."
Finally, the Court stated: "Nothing said in this order shall bind the final adjudication of the present suit."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Neel Mason, Mr. Arjun Harkauli, Mr. Aditya Mathur, Mr. Vihan Dang, and Mr. Ujjawal Bhargava, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kaushik Moitra, Ms. Vaishnavi Rao, Mr. Anurag Tandon, Ms. Arunima Nair, Ms. Subhalaxmi Sen, Ms. Shailza Agarwal, Mr. Abhishek Grover, Mr. Sai Shravanam, Mr. P.S. Raman, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sidharth Chopra, Ms. Sneha Jain, Mr. Vivek Ayyagari, Mr. Kuber Mahajan, Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr. Harsh Kaushik, Ms. Anushree Rauta, Mr. Shwetank Tripathi, Mr. Harsh Prakash, Mr. Deepank Singhal, Ms. Anchal Raghuwanshi, Mr. Anukool Chawla, Mr. Ankit Kothari, and Ms. Abhiti Vachher, Advocates.
For the Intervenor: Mr. Akshat Agrawal, Advocate.
Case Title: Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman & Ors.
Neutral Citation: Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:2907
Case Number: CS(COMM) 773/2023 and I.A. 21148/2023
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
[Read/Download order]
