Court favors AR Rahman, rejects claims that Dagar Brothers composed Shiva Stuti

Summary

This post analyses the Delhi High Court’s decision in the copyright dispute over the musical composition Shiva Stuti. The Court allowed Rahman’s appeal and set aside the Single Judge’s ruling. The Court held that there was no prima facie evidence to establish the Junior Dagar Brothers as the authors of “Shiva Stuti”, noting they were only credited as performers. It found the composition to be part of the Dagarvani tradition and public domain, rejecting claims of copyright infringement.

Factual Background

The present appeal arose out of a copyright dispute concerning a musical composition titled “Shiva Stuti”.

The Plaintiff was an heir of the Junior Dagar Brothers (Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar and Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar), renowned exponents of the Dhrupad tradition. He claimed they had originally authored and performed the composition around 1970. He also alleged that his disciples had approached the Defendants without authorization, and offered to perform the work.

He alleged that A.R. Rahman and associated music/film producers had wrongfully commercialized the composition in the film Ponniyin Selvan-2, without acknowledging their contribution. A Single Judge had earlier ruled partly in favor of the Dagar Brothers, against which Rahman filed the present appeal. [Previous blog on the Single Judge Decision: https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/ps2-copyright-case-delhi-high-court-dagar-brothers/]

Issues Before the Court

The Division Bench considered the following issues:

1. 1. Whether the “Shiva Stuti” composition qualified as an original work protected by copyright law.
   2. Whether the Junior Dagar Brothers were the authors and performers of the suit composition.
   3. Whether Rahman could claim independent rights over the composition, apart from the Dagar Brothers.
   4. The validity of the Single Judge’s interim order directing alterations in credits and deposits.

Contentions of the Parties

The Plaintiffs/Respondents contended that “Shiva Stuti” was a traditional Dhrupad composition that the Junior Dagar Brothers had created and performed over decades. Plaintiff maintained that the composition bore their creative imprint and was not a mere reproduction of existing traditional knowledge. In support of this claim, Plaintiff produced handwritten notations, archival recordings dating back to the 1975 Rotterdam concert, and contractual agreements with music companies. On this basis, it was argued that Rahman had simply adopted their composition without acknowledgment.

The defendant/appellant (A.R. Rahman), on the other hand, contended that the composition, or at least its arrangement, was his own original creative work. He alleged that the Dagar Brothers’ claims of authorship were retrospective and not sufficiently supported by evidence. It was argued that the composition was a traditional composition within the Dhrupad genre of Hindustani classical music, primarily passed on through oral tradition. It had been publicly performed and published by various renowned artists, and was freely available in the public domain, none of whom credited or attributed it to the Junior Dagar Brothers or the Plaintiff. Rahman maintained that his adaptation and use of the composition involved independent creativity, which entitled him to copyright protection.

Court’s Decision and Analysis

The Division Bench ultimately allowed the appeal by AR Rahman and set aside the Single Judge’s ruling.

The Division Bench analyzed the question of originality under the Copyright Act, 1957, stressing that originality requires a minimum degree of creativity and cannot consist merely of reproducing traditional material. The Court was critical of the Single Judge’s decision, which, in its view, had unduly weighed evidence such as documents and testimonies to find in favor of the Dagar Brothers. This evidence only listed the Dagar Brothers as performers, and not as authors or composers.

The Court found there was no prima facie evidence of the Junior Dagar Brothers being the authors of the suit composition “Shiva Stuti”. Consequently, no copyright in the composition “Shiva Stuti” vested in the Junior Dagar Brothers or the Plaintiff, and hence no question of infringement. It clarified that the Court examined the present case at a prima facie stage and did not express any opinion on merits with respect to authorship or originality, which may be addressed in the pending suit.

Citation: A.R. Rahman v. Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar & Ors (Delhi High Court, 24 September 2025) FAO(OS) (COMM) 86/2025 & CM APPL. 27354/2025. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/22096146/.

Relevant paragraphs:

…

1. 80. The simple reading of the above terms shows us that a performer can include musician or any other person who makes a “performance”. Performer does not become the author or owner of copyright in a song merely by performing it, their rights are related but distinct as mentioned in the Sections produced and discussed above. Thus, a distinction has been drawn between a performer and an author in the Act itself.
   81. With regards to authorship, we can say that concept of authorship is the core part to copyright law because the initial and enforceable rights over a creative work is granted to the author only. Copyright arises once work of author is original under Section 13(1) of the Act. However, unlike patents or trademarks, copyright does not compulsorily require registration of the copyright as its existence is stemmed directly to the act of creation and by virtue of Section 45 as discussed above.

…

1. 86. Therefore, the difficulty arises where a composition has existed for several decades and the identity of its actual composer remains uncertain. In such circumstances, recognition and enforcement of copyright becomes problematic, as the work lacks an identifiable original author upon whom ownership may legally vest.
   87. Adverting to the present facts, it is not disputed that the first fixation of the Suit Composition was done in 1978 Amsterdam concert and it is also not disputed that the rights were only given with respect to performance and there was no mention as to Junior Dagar Brothers being the original suit composers. Thus, the question arises that as to whether the Junior Dagar Brothers being the first performers for Suit Composition can claim right as authors.

…

1. 98. The reasoning arrived by the learned Single Judge by presumption of the authorship being in default of no material to contrary having been produced before the learned Single Judge, in our view is not tenable as mere presence of CDs of performance and their inlay cards do not establish authorship, at best they establish their right as performers under Section 38 of the Act but not as authors because these two rights are clearly distinguishable by the statute where a person can be the performer of a work without being its creator. This distinction can be labelled as deliberate and substantiative, as performance, however skillful, does not amount to any creation.
   99. Therefore, by merging these two distinctive rights despite their distinctiveness carved out by the legislation itself, contradicts the already established boundaries between original creation and its rendition. Hence, to infer authorship solely on basis of no contrary material is erroneous as any performer thus can claim authorship by first performing and publishing an original Suit Composition. This is problematic specifically in context of Indian classical music whereas discussed above, 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.

…

1. 109. Thus, for the presumption under Section 55(2) of the Act, to apply, the minimum threshold is that the person must be named as a purported author on the published copies of the work. Only then does the law raises a presumption of authorship, which the opposing party may rebut. The provision is essentially a rule of evidence, intended to provide a protective shield to an author (who may or may not be the actual author) against the public at large. The learned Single Judge in the first instance has erred in presuming the Junior Dagar Brothers to be the composer, despite the absence of any evidence or attribution naming them as authors or purported authors of the musical work. This amounted to using one presumption (as to composition) as a foundation to invoke another presumption (as to authorship), which is impermissible in law. The records clearly indicate the Junior Dagar Brothers only as performers, not as composers or purported authors, and hence Section 55(2) cannot be triggered. The said provision can be used only as a shield and not as a sword to claim authorship as the claim of such person as an author would hold good only against a person who claims to be a purported author and not against the actual author. As the Supreme Court cautioned in Suresh Budharmal Kalani v State of Maharashtra, held that ‘A presumption can be drawn only from facts and not from other presumption by a process of probable and logical reasoning’.

…

1. 119. In any case, the defendants have credited the impugned song to the Dagarvani tradition by running an intro of “composition based on Dagarvani tradition Dhrupad”.
   120. Therefore, it would be correct to say the song “Shiva Stuti” is a part of common Dagarvani tradition as it completely undisputedly attributed to it. However, this Court is unable to concur with the prima-facie findings of authorship of the Junior Dagar Brothers to the Suit Composition.
   121. The two main prerequisites to claim copyright are (i) authorship and (ii) originality. Since, this Court is unable to subscribe to the reasoning of the learned Single Judge on the aspect of authorship, this Court may not go any further. However, the issue of originality is so intertwined with the concept of authorship that one cannot be examined in isolation from the other.

…

1. 135. Applying these principles, it is evident that elements such as the use of Raga Adana, devotional invocations of Lord Shiva are mere ideas, themes or scenes a faire flowing necessarily from the grammar of Hindustani classical music, and thus forming part of the public domain. Copyright protection, therefore, cannot extend to such common elements but only to their distinctive arrangement or expression by an identifiable author.137. Therefore, originality carries within it a presumption of authorship, that there is an identifiable author behind the work who has contributed through independent application of skill and judgment. It is this fusion of authorship with originality that lays the foundation stone of copyright protection, ensuring that what is protected is not mechanical labour alone, but the expression of the author’s individuality.
   136. This principle was also reaffirmed in Eastern Book Company(supra), where the requirement of originality necessarily imports the notion that the work must originate from the author and not be a mere copy of an existing work. The Court in Eastern Book Company(Supra) clarified that originality does not demand novelty or non-obviousness, but rather the exercise of the author’s skill, judgment and minimal degree of creativity. Authorship and originality although distinct, are inextricably linked in copyright jurisprudence. Thus, in the context of compilation or derivative works copyright protection will not subsist merely by virtue of labour or capital, but requires that the author infuse the work with some intellectual creation of their own.

138. From the above discussion, we can safely conclude that originality in a work cannot exist in abstraction; it must necessarily be anchored to an author in order to claim copyright and in the present case as it has been already concluded from the first issue, that authorship has been established, then it goes without saying that the claim of originality collapses. Therefore, originality without identifiable authorship doesn’t sustain in the eyes of law.

Authored by Ms. Ashwini Arun