Facts

The story of this legal battle starts with a famous musician named Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, who is a Padma Shri awardee and a well-known singer in the Dagarvani style of Dhrupad, which is a type of old Indian classical music. He is the son of the late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and the nephew of the late Ustad N. Zahiruddin Dagar, together known as the Junior Dagar Brothers. These brothers are said to have created a musical piece called Shiva Stuti. stad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar claims that the rights to this music came to him through a spoken family agreement in 1994 among the heirs. He says he owns the copyright because of this agreement. He uses this music to teach his students but has not allowed anyone to use it for making money or public shows without his okay. He has given limited permissions to some music companies and schools only for learning and practice.

Two of his students, Shivam Bharadwaj and Arman Ali Dehlvi, knew about Shiva Stuti from their lessons. According to Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, these students went to A.R. Rahman, a famous music maker, and shared the music without his permission. Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar found out that parts of Shiva Stuti were used in a song called Veera Raja Veera in the Tamil movie Ponniyin Selvan – II.

A.R. Rahman made the music for the film, produced by Madras Talkies and Lyca Productions, with the music rights held by Tips Industries. The song credits said it was based on Dagarvani Tradition Dhrupad, but did not name the Junior Dagar Brothers or Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar. Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar says the song copies key parts like the note patterns, rhythm, and the main essence of Shiva Stuti, even if shifted to a different key. He wrote a letter to A.R. Rahman and the director Mani Ratnam about this, saying it broke the moral rights of the Junior Dagar Brothers and his copyright. Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar sent a legal notice by email. Madras Talkies replied denying all claims.

Procedural Details

Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court, case number CS (COMM) 773 of 2023, asking for a permanent order to stop the use of Shiva Stuti without credit to the Junior Dagar Brothers and without his permission, plus damages and account of profits. Along with the suit, he filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for temporary relief during the case.

The single judge of the Delhi High Court, in judgment, partly allowed the temporary application. The judge ordered changing the song credits to name the Junior Dagar Brothers, made A.R. Rahman, Madras Talkies, and Lyca Productions deposit two crore rupees in court until the trial ends, and pay two lakh rupees in costs to Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar. A.R. Rahman appealed this.

Dispute

The main fight is about whether Shiva Stuti is an original music piece that Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar owns the copyright to, and if A.R. Rahman and others broke that copyright by using it in Veera Raja Veera without proper credit or permission. Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar says the Junior Dagar Brothers made it in the 1970s as a joint work, and he got the rights through a family deal. He claims the song copies protected parts like the special note sequences and rhythm, hurting the moral rights to be named as authors and his economic rights. A.R. Rahman says it’s a traditional Dhrupad piece passed down orally, in the public domain, with no proof the brothers created it. He argues the shared parts are common to Raag Adana and not original enough for protection. The dispute also covers if the single judge was right to give temporary relief based on the evidence, or if he wrongly put the burden on the defendants to disprove ownership.

Reasoning

The division bench looked closely at two big questions: first, if the Junior Dagar Brothers were the authors of Shiva Stuti, and second, if it was original enough for copyright. On authorship, the court said under Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957, an author is the person who makes the work. Section 17 says the author is the first owner unless there’s an agreement otherwise. The court noted that for music, authorship means creating the notes and structure, not just performing it.

They discussed Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, where the Supreme Court said originality needs skill and judgment, not just hard work, and authorship must be proven. In that case, the court said copying court judgments with small changes isn’t original enough for copyright. Applying this, the bench said Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar’s evidence, and inlay card, only shows the brothers performed Shiva Stuti, not that they made it. The card lists them as performers, not composers. The family letter from 2023 and diary are weak because they’re recent and not direct proof from the 1970s. The 1995 agreement with PAN Records is about publishing rights for the recording, not composing. The bench said the single judge wrongly assumed authorship because there was no contrary proof, shifting the burden wrongly. They cited Section 55(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which presumes the name on published copies is the author, but here no copies name the brothers as composers.

They discussed R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, where the Supreme Court said no copyright in ideas, themes, or historical facts, only in how they’re expressed, and similarities must be substantial. Here, the bench said common Raag elements aren’t protectable. On originality, the court said under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright is for original musical works. From Eastern Book Company again, originality means independent skill, judgment, and some creativity, more than just sweat of the brow. The bench said the single judge didn’t properly check if Shiva Stuti added enough new to Raag Adana to be original.

Decision

The bench said the single judge didn’t do this filtration and wrongly found originality just because no contrary evidence. They cited Wander Ltd v. Antox India Pvt Ltd on when to give temporary relief: prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm. Here, no prima facie case for authorship or originality. Also, Pernod Ricard (P) Ltd v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, on interim orders. The bench discussed State of Maharashtra v. M.N. Kaul, saying presumptions come from facts, not other presumptions. Here, presuming authorship from performance is wrong. They mentioned Hazi Mohammad Ekramul Haq v. State of W.B., on expert evidence, but said the single judge used his own music knowledge without experts, which was okay if not challenged well, but here the conclusions were wrong. Overall, the bench said the single judge’s reasoning had errors, like mixing performance with authorship and not proving originality properly. The division bench allowed the appeal, set aside the single judge’s order of April 25, 2025, and said Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar didn’t show a strong enough starting case for authorship or originality. They clarified this is only for the temporary stage, and the full trial can decide the merits.

Disclaimer

The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.