Delhi High Court Rules on Composer’s Copyright in Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Limited

June 10, 2026

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

Introduction

On 21 May 2026, the Delhi High Court delivered its ruling in Mr. Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Limited (FAO(OS)(COMM) 52/2025). The case centered on the song “En Iniya Pon Nilave” from the 1980 Tamil film Moodu Pani. The dispute raised fundamental questions about the ownership of different elements of a song, its music, lyrics, and sound recording and whether a composer retains the right to license adaptations of a musical work after it has been incorporated into a cinematograph film.

Facts of the Case

The song in question was composed by Ilaiyaraaja for the film Moodu Pani, produced by Raja Cine Arts (RCA). On 25 February 1980, RCA entered into an agreement with Saregama India Limited (SIL), assigning copyright in the sound recordings and the musical and literary works of the film to SIL. Decades later, in 2025, SIL discovered that Vels Film International Limited (VFIL) was producing a new film titled Aghathiyaa, which included a recreation of the disputed song. VFIL claimed to have obtained a license for this adaptation directly from Ilaiyaraaja in 2023.

The matter first came before a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court, who on 30 January 2025 granted ad interim relief to SIL, restraining VFIL and Ilaiyaraaja from using the song. The Single Judge held that under Section 17 proviso (b) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the producer was the first owner of the copyright, and that the 2012 amendment to the Act was prospective, not applicable to works created in 1980. Ilaiyaraaja appealed this decision to the Division Bench.

Argument in Favour

Ilaiyaraaja argued that as the composer, he was the “author” of the musical work under Section 2(d)(ii) of the Copyright Act and therefore the first owner of its copyright. He relied on Section 13(4), which provides that copyright in a cinematograph film does not affect the separate copyright in the underlying musical work. He contended that Section 14(a)(vi) grants the author the exclusive right to make adaptations of the musical work, a right he had never assigned to RCA.

Ilaiyaraaja further argued that the second proviso to Section 17, inserted in 2012, protected his rights because the cause of action arose in 2025, making the current law applicable. He maintained that there was no evidence that he had composed the song under a contract of service or valuable consideration that would divest him of his ownership. He cited several cases in support of his position. In Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Assn, (1977) 2 SCC 820, the Supreme Court had dealt with producer versus composer rights in the pre-2012 era, which he argued was distinguishable. In Indian Performing Rights Ltd. v. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 944, the Bombay High Court held that the 2012 amendment preserved composers’ rights. He also relied on RDB and Co. (HUF) v. Harpercollins Publishers India Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3046, to argue that authors retain rights in underlying works.

Argument Against

SIL contended that under Section 17 proviso (b), RCA became the first owner of the musical and literary works because the song was created at its instance for valuable consideration. RCA subsequently assigned all rights to SIL in 1980, making SIL the lawful owner of the sound recording and underlying works. SIL argued that once the song was incorporated into the film’s soundtrack, Ilaiyaraaja’s rights under Section 14(1) were exhausted in favor of the producer.

SIL maintained that VFIL’s version was not an adaptation as defined under Section 2(a)(iv), which refers to arrangements or transcriptions of a musical work, but rather a new recording requiring authorization from SIL. It emphasized that Ilaiyaraaja, as composer, had no rights over the lyrics, and therefore could not license them to VFIL. SIL relied on IPRS v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Assn, (1977) 2 SCC 820, to assert the primacy of the producer’s ownership in pre-2012 works.

Court’s Decision

The Division Bench dismissed Ilaiyaraaja’s appeal and upheld the injunction against VFIL and Ilaiyaraaja. The Court acknowledged that Ilaiyaraaja was the author of the musical work under Section 2(d)(ii) and the first owner of that copyright. It recognized that Section 13(4) protects the composer’s separate copyright in the musical work, but clarified that this protection does not extend to acts involving the making of a cinematograph film or sound recording.

The Court held that Section 17 proviso (b) applied, making RCA the first owner of the sound recording and lyrics. The 2012 amendment to Section 17 was prospective and did not apply to works created in 1980. While Ilaiyaraaja retained rights over the musical composition, he had no copyright over the lyrics or the sound recording. His attempt to license these to VFIL in 2023 exceeded his authority.

The Court rejected the argument that VFIL’s recreation was an adaptation under Section 2(a)(iv), holding instead that it was a new sound recording requiring authorization from SIL. In doing so, the Court applied IPRS v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Assn, (1977) 2 SCC 820 to confirm producer’s ownership in pre-2012 works, distinguished RDB and Co. (HUF) v. Harpercollins Publishers India Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3046 as dealing with screenplays rather than musical works, and noted but declined to apply Indian Performing Rights Ltd. v. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 944 since the 2012 amendment was prospective.

Conclusion

The Court concluded that Ilaiyaraaja remains the owner of the musical composition but cannot license the lyrics or sound recording, which belong to SIL. VFIL’s recreation of the song infringed SIL’s copyright because it used elements beyond Ilaiyaraaja’s ownership. The appeal was dismissed, and the injunction against the defendants was upheld.

This case illustrates the delicate balance between the rights of composers and producers in Indian copyright law. It reinforces that composers retain rights in their musical works under Section 13(4), but these rights are limited once the work is incorporated into a film. Producers and their assignees hold ownership of sound recordings and lyrics under Section 17 proviso (b). The 2012 amendment clarified composers’ rights but operates prospectively, not retroactively. Licensing agreements must respect the boundaries of ownership, distinguishing between musical composition, lyrics, and sound recordings.

By upholding SIL’s copyright while recognizing Ilaiyaraaja’s limited rights, the Court provided clarity on the scope of authorship and ownership in musical works. The ruling serves as a precedent for future disputes involving adaptations, re-recordings, and interplay between statutory provisions and contractual assignments. It underscores the importance of carefully drafted agreements and the need to distinguish between different components of a song when determining copyright ownership.