The Delhi High Court has overturned an interim injunction against renowned music composer AR Rahman in a copyright dispute concerning the song “Veera Raja Veera” from the 2023 Tamil film Ponniyin Selvan 2. This injunction was initially imposed by a single-judge bench following a lawsuit filed by classical singer Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar. Dagar claimed that the composition mirrored the musical structure, rhythm, and beat of “Shiva Stuti,” a piece credited to his father and uncle.
In a ruling delivered by a Division Bench comprised of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, the court stated that the single judge had made an error by presuming copyright based on performance rather than actual authorship. The judges emphasized that their decision did not address whether copyright infringement had occurred; rather, it focused on fundamental flaws in the principles applied by the single judge. Specifically, the court noted that a performer cannot be automatically regarded as the composer and thus the copyright holder under current law.
Rahman’s legal team contended that “Shiva Stuti” is a traditional Dhrupad composition that resides in the public domain. They maintained that “Veera Raja Veera” is an original work employing Western musical principles. The Division Bench has temporarily suspended the order mandating changes to credits and costs but upheld the requirement for a deposit of Rs 2 crore pending a final resolution of the case.
Key Legal Findings from the Court
Several critical legal points emerged from the Delhi High Court’s order, which granted relief to Rahman in the copyright matter. The Division Bench highlighted that the single judge issued the injunction without adequately examining the merits of the infringement claim. This lack of scrutiny raises questions about the procedural validity of such injunctions.
The court also noted the necessity of distinguishing between authorship and performance in copyright claims. The plaintiff, while he may perform the referenced composition, might not necessarily hold the copyright. The justices acknowledged the defense’s argument, which posited that “Shiva Stuti” is part of the public domain in Dhrupad music, and that Rahman’s composition builds upon broader musical principles with original layering.
Furthermore, the court emphasized adherence to copyright law principles and cautioned against preliminary orders that could prejudge substantive rights without thorough examination. These considerations underscore the ongoing need to balance interim relief in copyright lawsuits while recognizing the public domain status of traditional compositions.
Understanding Copyright Law in India
According to the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, the term “composer” is specifically defined concerning musical works. Section 2(ffa) states that a “composer” refers to the individual who creates or composes the music, irrespective of whether the music is documented in any graphic notation. This definition ensures that the composer retains exclusive rights, including reproduction, public performance, adaptation, and distribution of their musical work.
The law also acknowledges joint authorship, allowing multiple composers to share rights and protections over a musical piece. It is crucial to note that the copyright for a musical work pertains only to the music itself, excluding any accompanying lyrics, which may be protected under separate literary rights.
These provisions form the bedrock of copyright protection for musical compositions in India, ensuring that composers can maintain control over and benefit from their original creations. As the legal proceedings continue, the detailed judgment from the Delhi High Court is expected to provide further clarity on these complex issues.
