Case Analysis: Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R.Rahman (2025)

By Anokhi Parag Pandey 

I. Quorum & Bench

Court- Delhi High Court

Judgement delivered by Justice Prathiba M. Singh

II. Analysis

The plaintiff, Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, comes from a musical lineage where his uncle and father used to sing as a duo (jugalbandi) in their family tradition of Hindustani classical music, known as the Dagarvani style/Gharana, and were popularly known as the “Junior Dagar Brothers”.He filed a suit against Mr. A.R. Rahman ( Defendant No. 1) for alleged copyright infringement and violation of moral rights. The dispute centres around the song “Veera Raja Veera” in the film “Ponniyin Selvan-2” which incorporates the “Shiva Stuti”, - a musical composition which was written and composed by the plaintiff’s father and uncle. The impugned song was released on 28th March, 2023 and the audiovisual version was released on 8th April, 2023,  without citing the suit composition in its credits. Upon discovering this, the plaintiff wrote to Mr. A.R. Rahman and Mr. Mani Ratnam seeking an amicable resolution and acknowledgement of the copyrights involved. Although Defendant no. 1 had assured that moral rights would be respected, no action followed. Subsequently, the Plaintiff sent a legal notice on 20th April 2023, offering a non-exclusive license. However, Defendant No. 2, Madras Talkies, rejected all claims of the plaintiff qua the suit composition on 24th April 2023. With the film’s continued release across platforms and without a resolution, the Plaintiff filed the present suit, asserting an infringement of the moral rights of the Junior Dagar Brothers and copyright of the Plaintiff over the suit composition. 

The Court referred to Section 2 (p), Section 13, Section 14 and Section 51 of the Copyright Act to understand the implications of copyright infringement and musical works.. In the judgment of Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Assn., (1977) 2 SCC 820, the Supreme Court has pointed out the difficulty in answering whether the producer of the cinematograph film can defeat the rights of the composer of music or lyrics. Justice Krishna Iyer criticized the law for being “un-Indian”  for only granting copyrights to the composer and not the singer, urging legislative recognition of performers’ contributions alongside composers. In the case of Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., (1995) 58 DLT 99, the term “musical work” was taken to mean that it had to also ought to have been “printed, reduced to writing or otherwise graphically produced or reproduced”. The jurisprudence in the United States of America has significance in considering this case as seen in Michael Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin, [952 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2020)], where the extent of copyright protection were was detailed as not to be called into question for just a few notes or common musical elements that are rampant in a genre.  

The Court held that the Plaintiff succeeded in prima facie establishing its case for copyright infringement by the Defendants. This finding represents a significant advancement in protecting the traditional oral works under contemporary copyright laws. It sets an important precedent to uphold the moral rights of composers working within classical frameworks. It raises critical questions about how far copyright protection extends in this digital era of cinema. In an age dominated by OTTs and other streaming services, the Court’s decision reinforces the accountability to ensure that no copyright is infringed and that due credit is given. This judgement also distinguishes between the protected and unprotected elements, which will affect the future copyright suits in the field of music. The Court took into account “Swaras, Bhava and Aural impact,” which will would affect how cases regarding music are will be adjudicated moving forward. Therefore, it is essential to strike a thoughtful balance between safeguarding the rights of creators, while maintaining the integrity of the public domain.

 References:

1.Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2666.

2. Copyright Act, § 14, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).

3.Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Assn., (1977) 2 SCC 820.

4.Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. v. Super Cassette Industries Ltd., 1995 SCC OnLine Del 154.