A.R. Rahman V. Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar & Ors.

Summary

This case concerns a copyright dispute over the Hindustani classical composition “Shiva Stuti”. The plaintiff, Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, alleged that the composition was created in the 1970s by his father and uncle, the Junior Dagar Brothers, and that he inherited copyright ownership through a family settlement. The appellant, A.R. Rahman, composed the song “Veera Raja Veera” for the film Ponniyin Selvan II, which the plaintiff claimed substantially copied Shiva Stuti without authorization or credit. The plaintiff submitted a 1978 recording of the composition, handwritten lyrics, and licensing agreements with music labels to prove authorship. Upon review, the learned single judge granted an injunction, directing that public credits for the song acknowledge the Junior Dagar Brothers as composers, and imposed a deposit of Rs. 2 crores along with Rs. 2 lakhs in costs. Aggrieved, A.R. Rahman appealed to the Division Bench.

Issues Raised:

1. Whether the suit composition was authored or composed by the plaintiff (or his predecessors)?
2. Whether the suit composition qualifies as an original work of the plaintiff?

Appellant’s Arguments: The appellant contended that the plaintiff had failed to provide reliable proof of authorship and originality, especially given the standards applicable to works within classical frameworks.

They argued that the single judge misapplied the lay listener test instead of using expert evaluation, and that inspiration from a musical style was wrongly equated with copying a specific composition. The appellant also highlighted a delay of six months in seeking interim relief, undermining the claim of urgency, and asserted that granting final relief at an interlocutory stage was erroneous.

Respondents’ Arguments: The respondents argued that they had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favoured them. They relied on circumstantial evidence such as handwritten lyrics of Shiva Stuti, the earliest known performance by the Junior Dagar Brothers recorded in Amsterdam in 1978, licensing arrangements with music labels, and absence of competing claims. They also submitted that defendant No. 1 had access to the composition through disciples of the Dagar Brothers and had admitted inspiration from their works.

Judgment: The Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the interim relief granted by the single judge. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish prima facie authorship of the composition, which is essential for a copyright claim. Evidence showed that the Junior Dagar Brothers were performers, not composers. The Copyright Act, 1957, clearly distinguishes between composers (Section 2(d)(ii)) and performers (Sections 2(qq) and 38), and proof of performance cannot substitute for proof of authorship. Section 55(2) presumption of authorship did not apply because the performers were never identified as authors. Consequently, originality could not be claimed without proven authorship. The Division Bench also noted that the single judge erroneously reversed the burden of proof; the plaintiff must prove authorship on the strength of his own evidence.

Significance: This judgment establishes a key precedent in copyright law concerning classical music in India. It highlights the distinction between performers and composers’ rights, requiring prima facie proof of authorship to sustain a copyright claim. It prevents misattribution of compositions based solely on recordings or performances, clarifies that inspiration from a musical tradition is insufficient to claim copying, and highlights the challenges of applying copyright law to orally transmitted classical compositions. The ruling strengthens legal safeguards for composers while emphasizing procedural rigor in copyright disputes.