Judicial Recognition of Moral Rights in India: The Amar Nath Sehgal Case

Introduction

Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India[1]  is one of the most significant judgments on the aspect of moral rights of artists in India as delivered by the Delhi High Court on 21 February 2005, by Hon’ble Justice Pradeep Nandrajog where Amar Nath Sehgal, the famous sculptor was the petitioner and the Union of India was the respondent. The judgment focused on the importance of moral rights under section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 as well as establishing a precedent for the moral right to exist independently, notwithstanding the ownership of the original work of art.

Parties

The petitioner, Amar Nath Sehgal, was an incredibly accomplished sculptor, considered to be one of India’s most distinguished artists and a recipient of the Padma Bhushan. His work, which distils India’s cultural and historical heritage into a form, was well known, and he enjoyed a strong following internationally. The respondent to the claim was the Union of India, as represented by the Ministry of Urban Development and others who were the custodians of the Vigyan Bhawan premises.[2]

Case Summary

In the early 1950s, the Government of India commissioned Amar Nath Sehgal to create a bronze mural on the wall of Vigyan Bhawan in New Delhi, which was one of the leading conference centres in the country. The mural was finished in the year 1962, and was 140 feet-long, beautifully portraying the diverse cultural and historical richness of India. It soon became a recognised work of public art. However in the late-1970s or early-1980s the mural was taken down during some renovations at Vigyan Bhawan, without any notification to Sehgal. The mural was not treated or cared for in an appropriate way – rather, it had a poor preservation method and was located at a government storehouse, where it was neglected and not cared for.

Sehgal eventually learned about the condition of his mural after several years, and was subsequently very distraught about its condition. His attempts to contact the authorities and seek referral, restoration, or an explanation were denied by the authorities. In 1992, and after feeling his rights and integrity as an artist had been violated, he submitted a writ petition to the Delhi High Court. He indicated that the actions of the government represented a violation of his moral rights, defined in Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, [3]which supports the person rights of authors and creators regardless of possession or ownership.

The main issue facing the Court was whether the Government’s removal and damaging of the mural, despite being the owner, infringed on the artist’s moral rights.

Questions raised before the Court:

1. Did the State’s unauthorized removal and damage of the mural violate the artist’s moral rights under the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 57?
2. Do moral rights exist independently of the ownership or economic rights in the artwork?
3. Was the petition entitled to restoration of the mural and/or damages for emotional distress and damage to his reputation?
4. Did the State’s actions violate its international obligations under the Berne Convention?
5. Do public authorities owe a duty to protect artistic works of cultural significance held in the public trust?

Arguments of the Parties

Arguments by the Petitioner:

Amar Nath Sehgal contended that even though the Government had purchased the mural, the moral and intellectual rights of the design still belonged to him. The mural demonstrated Sehgal’s personality and creative storytelling, and its removal without prior or subsequent notice amounted to a distortion and mutilation of the artist’s work, resulting in emotional and reputational harm.

He relied on Section 57 of the Copyright Act, which empowers authors to prevent any modification or destruction of their work injurious to the author’s honour or reputation. Sehgal requested an order for the remnants of the mural to be returned to him, to restore the mural, and for damages resulting from the violation of his copyright rights. He also noted that the Government acted with indifference towards artists and the preservation of cultural heritage.

Arguments by the Respondent:

The Union of India argued that since the mural was commissioned, paid for, and delivered to the Government, it came into possession of the Government which had the discretion to deal with the mural how it desired. It also had to do with the remove and discard aspect that involved renovation and not with the intent to damage or defame the art.

The Government further argued that Section 57 was not applicable as the murals were not mutilated or destroyed with the intent to be destructive., and that the artist’s moral rights did not survive once ownership had been transferred.

Judgement

The Delhi High Court ruled in a landmark decision that the actions of the Government infringed Amar Nath Sehgal’s moral rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Infringement of Moral Rights

The court found that the mural was taken down without permission and stored improperly, and this type of action could be harmful to the artist’s honour and reputation. Justice Nandrajog stated that such treatment was in violation of the dignity and integrity of the artist. The ruling expressed that moral rights are an essential aspect of an artist’s identity, and violating them achieves a legal cause of action.

Moral Rights and Ownership Distinction

The court found that moral rights stay with the artist even upon the transfer of ownership of the actual work of art. An artist’s moral rights are not extinguished by ownership or sale of the artwork, as moral rights arise from the personal link to the work. Moral rights are vested and cannot be transferred.

Restitution and damages

The Court ordered that the remaining parts of the mural be returned to Sehgal and be offered the chance to restore the integrity of his work as he wished. The Court ordered the Union of India to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as a token amount that only recognized harm for emotional harm and harm to his relationship with the artifacts in question, not for economic loss.

Cultural Responsibility of the State

Justice Nandrajog explained that public art is part of the nation’s cultural heritage as well as its identity. The responsibility of the government is to ensure that public art must be protected and preserved with dignity. Ignoring these responsibilities is a violation of legal obligations and also undermines the cultural and moral imperatives of the nation.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Nandrajog explained that moral rights pursuant to Section 57, including those specifically pertaining to the right of attribution, and the right to and ethical outcome free from modification, embellishment or defamation, all are rights that cannot be assigned or lost by virtue of a sale. The destruction of the mural was not simply an administrative failure, but a violation of an artist’s soul and reputation.

The Court situated Indian law relative to broader international practice through the lens of adherence to the Berne Convention and the underlying human dignity as well as artistic integrity. The mural as a national work of art, was a piece of India’s heritage and by extension the state’s action or inaction was a violation of its legal and more importantly its moral obligations.

Conclusion

The case took a fresh look at the moral rights and sustained the view that an artist’s creation is part of the artist’s identity. The Court’s humane approach showed the courts concern was not only based on ownership or monetary entitlement, but to preserve the emotional and cultural bond between an artist and their creation.

The ruling sent a clear message to public authorities about their responsibility to respect and maintain artistic heritage. The order of damages, although symbolic, spoke to the pain and damage the State caused by its culpable neglect. The case continues to be a leading element of the law relating to the dignity, authorship, and cultural weight of a creative piece in India.

[1] (117 (2005) DLT 717, 2005 (30) PTC 253 (DEL))

[2] Amar Nath Sehgal, 117 (2005) DLT at 739.

[3] The Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, § 57, INDIA CODE