For more intellectual property updates, follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn

Written by Nasreen Serji, student at Government Law College, Thrissur.  

Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman & Ors., CS (COMM) 773/2023

In a landmark case of copyright infringement involving Hindustani Classical music, the Delhi High Court addressed the striking similarities between the song ‘Veera Raja Veera’ and the traditional composition ‘Shiva Stuti.’ The case involves a unique copyright infringement dispute over a Hindustani Classical music composition. The Court examined the composition, ‘Shiva Stuti,’ analyzing its notes and ragas to identify the protectable elements of the original work by the Junior Dagar Brothers. Justice Prathiba M. Singh remarked that the song ‘Veera Raja Veera’ was “not just inspired but is, in fact, identical” to ‘Shiva Stuti.’ The Delhi High Court allowed the copyright infringement case based on the substantial similarity test.  

FACTS 

The plaintiff is a Dhrupad vocalist and a descendant of the ‘Dagar Gharana,’ a long line of Dhrupad vocalists. It is alleged that the song ‘Veera Raja Veera’ from the film PS 2 infringes the copyright of Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar in the Dhrupad musical composition titled ‘Shiva Stuti.’ The plaintiff’s uncle and father, the late Ustad Nasir Faiyazuddin Dagar and the late Ustad Nasir Zahiruddin Dagar, created the composition in the 1970s. 

The defendants include the music director of the film, A.R. Rahman, and the co-producers, Madras Talkies and Lyca Productions Private Limited, among others. The plaintiff filed this suit seeking an interim injunction to direct the defendants to credit the Junior Dagar Brothers and to restrain them from playing the song without a proper license. 

CONTENTIONS 

The plaintiff contended that the impugned song is based on the composition of Raga Adana, a raga in Hindustani Classical music. They argued that the taal/beat of the impugned song is identical, with the only difference being the lyrics. They submitted that even a small identical part can be injuncted by the Court, and it is not necessary for the entire composition to be copied. According to the plaintiff, various swaras in the raga can be mixed differently and do not have to be similar. They stated that mixing and composing are done by the music composer. The plaintiff initially sought the removal of the impugned song parts or, alternatively, monetary compensation if infringement was found. They also requested that, pending the trial, the defendants be directed to credit the film as: ‘Based on the original composition by Late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and Late Ustad N. Zahiruddin Dagar. 

The first defendant argued that the plaintiff provided no evidence to show that the suit composition is an original work by the Junior Dagar Brothers. They stated that Dhrupad, a form of Hindustani classical music, is passed down through generations and follows strict rules. They contended that the Dagarvani style and the suit composition are not original and therefore not copyrightable. The defendants further argued that, in cases of infringement involving Hindustani classical music, only the protectable elements should be compared for substantial similarity. They claimed that if the fundamental notes of the composition are in the public domain, there can be no infringement. They also argued that the composition lacks originality due to similar public domain renditions and cited its similarity to Amir Khusro’s 13th-century work ‘Yaar-e-Man Biya Biya.’ 

One of the defendants argued that the Junior Dagar Brothers aimed to spread the Dagarvani tradition and Hindustani Classical music rather than copyright it. They also contended that the songs are widely available online, and an injunction could force them to remove or edit the songs across platforms. If the plaintiff later fails to prove authorship, the defendants may suffer irreparable loss. Conversely, if the plaintiff succeeds, monetary compensation can be awarded, with the Court deciding which defendant is liable. It was also submitted that classical music may sound similar to an ordinary person; however, if the unprotectable elements are removed from the compositions, they would sound completely different. 

FINDINGS 

The test of ‘substantial similarity’ is applied in cases to determine if one work illegally copies the protected elements of another work. This helps to understand if infringement has occurred on the original work. The Court applied the substantial similarity test, focusing on the ‘soul’ of the composition. It found that the elements in “Shiva Stuti” were original and protected under the Copyright Act, even if some individual parts are in the public domain. The specific arrangement of the Raga and Dhrupad style in “Shiva Stuti,” along with the tempo and Bhava, demonstrated originality. The musical emotion of the composition was also considered. 

“Veera Raja Veera” was not just inspired by this composition—it retained the same melodic phrasing and mood, though adapted into a cinematic form. 

The Court referred to Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Assn., (1977) 2 SCC 820, and noted that copyright law in India has evolved to include Hindustani classical music works. As long as the composition in Hindustani classical music is an original work of the composer, it is entitled to protection under the Act. 

The Court pointed out that while Hindustani classical compositions must follow a raga’s structure, composers have vast creative freedom within it. They can decide how to use the swaras and other musical elements to form a composition. Millions of original compositions exist across ragas and Gharanas, each considered original unless copied from another. 

The Court also referenced Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, (2008) 1 SCC 1, where it was held that originality depends on the skill, judgment, or labour applied in creating the work  

Raga theory textbooks define core elements like Aroha, Avroha, Pakad, and Alaap, allowing for multiple original compositions within a single raga . The Court affirmed that works in the same raga and taal can still be original. ‘Shiva Stuti,’ a Dhrupad composition in Raga Adana and Sultaal performed in the Dagarvani tradition by the Junior Dagar Brothers, was held to be an original work. The plaintiff, son of the late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar, claims copyright through a 1994 oral family settlement. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court observed that the impugned song, both in the introduction and main composition, has a striking resemblance to the plaintiff’s suit composition. To a normal listener, the similarity would be evident, providing prima facie evidence of substantial similarity between the two works. Justice Singh directed that the film must replace the credit to include “Composition based on Shiva Stuti by Late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and Late Ustad N. Zahiruddin Dagar.” Additionally, the defendants were directed to deposit ₹2 crore pending trial and pay ₹2 lakh in costs to the Dagar family within four weeks.  

Update: Recently, in an appeal before the division bench of the Delhi High Court, the Court has stayed the current order against the defendants. This stay means that the defendants are not currently required to replace the film credits or pay ₹2 lakh in costs to the Dagar family. However, the defendants were still directed to deposit ₹2 crore with the court registry within 10 days. The division bench will further hear the stay application and the appeal challenging the Single Judge’s order on May 23, 2025.