Delhi High Court Overturns Injunction Against AR Rahman, Cites Fundamental Error in Defining 'Composer'

New Delhi – In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for music copyright litigation, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has set aside a single-judge interim injunction against renowned music composer A.R. Rahman. The case involves allegations that the song 'Veera Raja Veera' from the 2023 film Ponniyin Selvan II infringed the copyright of a classical composition.

The Division Bench, comprising Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, allowed Rahman's appeal, stating it was overturning the previous order "on principle" without delving into the substantive question of infringement at this stage. The core of the bench's reasoning centered on a crucial distinction under the Copyright Act: the difference between rendering a musical piece and composing it.

“We have held that the single judge has erred on principle & finding on the basis of the material that shows that the junior Dagar brothers had rendered the composition that there is presumption that they were also the composers," the Court observed while pronouncing its verdict. "We have said that if we hold that the person who renders the composition to be the composer, we will have to rewrite the definition (of “composer” in the Copyright Act).”

This decision vacates the April 2025 order by Justice Prathiba M. Singh, which had restrained Rahman and the film's producers and directed them to deposit ₹2 crore with the court registry, among other directives.

---

Background of the Dispute: 'Shiva Stuti' vs. 'Veera Raja Veera'

The copyright infringement suit was initiated in 2023 by Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, a distinguished classical vocalist and Padma Shri awardee. He alleged that 'Veera Raja Veera' was a copy of 'Shiva Stuti', a composition he claimed was created in the 1970s by his father, Ustad Nasir Faiyazuddin Dagar, and his uncle, Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar—collectively known as the Junior Dagar Brothers, famed exponents of the Dhrupad tradition.

Dagar argued that while the lyrics differed, the taal (rhythm), beat, and overall musical structure of Rahman's song were identical to 'Shiva Stuti'. He asserted that he held the rights to all compositions of his father and uncle through a family arrangement. To substantiate the composition's originality and history, Dagar pointed to its performance at international venues, including a 1978 concert at the Royal Tropical Institute in Amsterdam, and its release on an album.

The plaintiff sought an injunction, credit for the original composers across all platforms, and other reliefs against Rahman, production house Madras Talkies, Lyca Productions, and music label Tips Industries.

The Single-Judge's Controversial Injunction

In a detailed interim order dated April 25, Justice Prathiba M. Singh had granted an injunction in Dagar's favor. The single-judge bench had found a strong prima facie case of infringement, making a critical observation that the two works were nearly identical.

“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," Justice Singh had stated. "Hence, the Defendant’s composition infringes the Plaintiff’s rights in Shiva Stuti.”

The order had also held that the lack of acknowledgment for the Dagar brothers constituted a serious violation of their moral rights. Citing the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable injury, the court had directed Rahman and the producers to: 1. Add credits attributing the original composition to the Junior Dagar Brothers in the film's title slides. 2. Deposit a sum of ₹2 crore with the Delhi High Court Registry. 3. Pay ₹2 lakh in costs to the plaintiff.

This order was subsequently stayed by the Division Bench in May, although the direction to deposit the ₹2 crore was upheld pending the appeal's final hearing.

Arguments on Appeal and the Division Bench's Decisive Reasoning

In appealing the order, Rahman's legal team mounted a two-pronged defense. They contended that 'Veera Raja Veera' was an original composition built on Western musical principles, featuring 227 distinct tracks—a complexity far removed from a traditional Dhrupad rendition. More fundamentally, they argued that 'Shiva Stuti' was a traditional composition belonging to the public domain, and thus ineligible for copyright protection.

The defendants also accused Dagar of seeking publicity and financial gain, with Tips Industries adding that copyright could not be claimed over a "manner of singing" or style of rendition.

The Division Bench’s decision to set aside the injunction hinged on what it viewed as a foundational error in the single-judge's reasoning: the conflation of performance with composition. The bench's oral remarks indicate that the single judge incorrectly presumed that because the Junior Dagar Brothers had famously performed or "rendered" the composition, they must also be its original authors or "composers" as defined by law.

By clarifying that evidence of performance alone is insufficient to establish authorship, the Division Bench has reinforced a critical tenet of copyright law. The court signaled that treating a performer as a de facto composer would necessitate a judicial rewriting of the Copyright Act, an act it was unwilling to undertake.

Legal and Industry Implications

This ruling carries significant weight for the Indian music industry, especially in cases involving classical, folk, and traditional music.

1. Clarifying the Burden of Proof for Authorship: The decision underscores that plaintiffs alleging copyright infringement in musical works must present clear and compelling evidence of original composition, distinct from evidence of performance or popularization of a work. This may prove challenging for heirs of artists who were part of oral traditions where documentation of original authorship was not common practice.

2. Distinction Between Performer and Composer: The court has drawn a bright line between the rights of a performer and the rights of a composer. While performers have specific rights under the Copyright Act, these are separate from the authorship rights of the creator of the musical work itself. This distinction will likely be a focal point in future litigation.

3. Public Domain and Traditional Music: The case highlights the perennial tension between protecting original creative works and preserving access to cultural heritage in the public domain. While the Division Bench did not rule on the public domain status of 'Shiva Stuti', its focus on the definition of a composer implicitly protects the use of traditional compositions that lack a clearly identifiable, original author.

While the Division Bench has provided substantial relief to A.R. Rahman at the interim stage, it explicitly stated that it "has not gone into the aspect of infringement." The lawsuit filed by Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar will now proceed to trial, where the court will finally adjudicate on the core questions of originality, authorship, and potential infringement based on the evidence presented by both parties. A detailed written judgment from the Division Bench is awaited and is expected to provide further clarity on its legal reasoning.