The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman & Ors. marks a critical juncture in Indian copyright jurisprudence. At its core lies a question that challenges the very definition of “originality” within India’s rich classical music tradition: did A.R. Rahman’s popular composition Veera Raja Veera unlawfully copy elements from the Dhrupad piece Shiva Stuti, created by the Junior Dagar Brothers in the 1970s?
The case is more than a dispute over musical ownership. It brings into focus the difficult task of applying modern copyright principles—rooted in Western ideas of individual authorship—to traditional art forms that have evolved collectively over centuries.
A Clash of Systems: Modern Copyright Law and Classical Traditions
Indian classical music thrives on oral transmission, collaborative performance, and creative reinterpretation. Students imitate their gurus; compositions evolve through generations. In this system, no single artist can claim absolute ownership over a raga or musical motif. This is fundamentally at odds with copyright law, which assumes a clearly identifiable creator and a fixed form of expression.
When Dhrupad maestro Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar accused Rahman of copying Shiva Stuti, he raised a crucial legal question: can a modern composer be held liable for infringing a work rooted in a centuries-old raga like Adana, especially when that raga itself is part of the public domain?
Precedent and Progress: Indian Courts on Classical Music
This case isn’t the first to grapple with the challenge. In Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association (1977), the Supreme Court recognized that oral traditions did not disqualify a work from copyright protection. Later, in Neha Bansal v. Anand Raj Anand (2010), the Delhi High Court developed the “substantial similarity” test to assess musical infringement, laying the foundation for judgments like this one.
However, these earlier cases mostly involved film music or works with identifiable authors. Veera Raja Veera demanded a more nuanced legal and musicological analysis—one that respected both individual creativity and collective cultural heritage.
A Landmark Decision: Recognizing Originality in Traditional Music
The Delhi High Court took a deep dive into the structure of Shiva Stuti and its relation to Veera Raja Veera. It found that while both compositions are rooted in Raga Adana, the specific arrangement of swaras in Shiva Stuti—especially the dragging of the note ‘g’—demonstrated sufficient originality to warrant protection.
This recognition of micro-level musical creativity within a traditional framework is significant. It acknowledges that even within established ragas, artists can contribute something new and protectable.
The court further upheld the moral rights of the Junior Dagar Brothers, drawing from the landmark Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005) judgment. It ordered that appropriate credit be given in future uses of the work—affirming the importance of attribution, even posthumously.
The Limitations of the Current Framework
Yet the ruling raises critical concerns. If minor innovations within a raga are eligible for copyright protection, could this stifle the improvisational essence of classical music? Could students or performers unintentionally infringe copyrights by echoing the styles of their teachers or gharanas?
This is especially troubling when considering earlier decisions like Super Cassettes v. Bathla Cassettes (1994), where the court hesitated to protect brief musical expressions. The broad scope of protection in the Rahman case risks chilling the very practices that have sustained India’s musical heritage.
There is also the issue of fixation. While the court accepted a 1978 recording as sufficient evidence of the work’s existence, this may conflict with the Supreme Court’s observations in Academy of General Education v. B. Malini Mallya (2009) about the difficulty of granting protection to unrecorded traditional expressions.
Rethinking Moral Rights and Ownership
Moral rights in classical music—especially for works that have evolved over decades or centuries—pose a conceptual challenge. While Amar Nath Sehgal established that moral rights do not extinguish with the author’s death, applying this to traditional compositions blurs the lines between individual ownership and community heritage.
If every variation of a raga were protected, performers might face legal hurdles simply for practicing their art. The learning process itself—based on imitation, variation, and reinterpretation—could become vulnerable to infringement claims.
Global Lessons: Comparative Approaches
Other jurisdictions offer instructive models. In Nigeria, courts have recognized that folk songs belong to entire communities. Japan considers the degree of transformation in determining originality. Australia’s legal system protects Aboriginal music through a culturally sensitive lens.
India, with its vast and diverse musical legacy, must develop a uniquely Indian approach—one that respects tradition, rewards creativity, and maintains access for future generations.
A Path Forward: Legal and Institutional Solutions
One possible solution is to classify compositions based on their nature and origin. Ancient ragas, widely performed and evolved communally, could be placed in the public domain. Newly composed works, even if rooted in traditional forms, could be protected for shorter durations.
India also needs an institutional mechanism to preserve classical music. A national archive where musicians can voluntarily register their compositions—accompanied by audio, notations, and historical context—would help settle authorship claims and support cultural preservation.
Moreover, judicial decisions in these cases should be guided by panels of musicologists and practitioners. Judges should not be left to evaluate “originality” in complex ragas without expert input. A collaborative adjudicatory framework would result in fairer, more informed outcomes.
The Road Ahead: Balancing Tradition and Innovation
The Rahman case is not just about one song. It affects how young musicians learn, how compositions are shared, and how legal systems engage with intangible heritage. If our laws are too rigid, they will discourage artistic growth. If too lenient, they will leave artists vulnerable.
The solution lies in balance—laws that protect both the individual artist and the collective tradition. Indian classical music has always evolved by honoring the past while embracing the future. The law should do the same.
As digital technologies increasingly blur the lines between reproduction and creation, we must urgently update our copyright frameworks to accommodate both artificial and human creativity. The future of Indian classical music depends on it.
References:
- Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Eastern Indian Motion Pictures Association, AIR 1977 SC 1443.
- Neha Bansal v. Anand Raj Anand, CS(OS) 2006/2006 (Delhi High Court).
- Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Mars Recording Pvt. Ltd., 1984 (4) PTC 358.
- Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India, 2005 (30) PTC 253 (Del).
- Ram Sampat v. Rajesh Roshan, 2013 (55) PTC 289 (Bom).
- Super Cassettes v. Bathla Cassettes, 1994 (14) PTC 280.
- Academy of General Education v. B. Malini Mallya, (2009) 4 SCC 256.
- Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman & Ors., CS(COMM) 292/2023 (Delhi High Court 2023).
Disclaimer: The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Authors:
Mohit Porwal, Associate Partner