Protecting Traditional Music: A Legal Analysis Of The Dagar Brothers’ Copyright Case

Posted On - 29 May, 2025 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva

Introduction

In Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman & Ors.[1], the Plaintiff, a descendant of the Junior Dagar Brothers, claimed copyright infringement over the song Veera Raja Veera from the film Ponniyin Selvan 2. Recently, the Court found the song to be identical to the Plaintiff’s composition Shiva Stuti in swaras, bhava, and aural impact, granting relief for copyright infringement.

Factual Background

Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, son and nephew of the renowned Junior Dagar Brothers – pioneers of the Dagarvani tradition of Dhrupad – has filed a suit against A.R. Rahman and others for unauthorized use of a composition allegedly created by his father and uncle in the 1970s. The song, featured in the film Ponniyin Selvan 2, was performed without the Plaintiff’s consent, despite it being part of his inherited copyright through a family settlement. Alleging infringement of copyright and moral rights, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, including credits, takedown, licensing, and a public apology from the Defendants.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff’s Submissions

  • The Plaintiff alleges that the song at issue in the movie PS-2 substantially replicates the musical composition of the Junior Dagar Brothers’ Raga Adana, which was composed during the 1970s. While the lyrics are different, the taal and the musical arrangement are said to be almost identical. A comparison notation chart of the swaras of both works has been filed, indicating the identical sequence and treatment of notes.
  • It is explained that even though Raga Adana and the Dagarvani school of music are in the public domain, original selection, arrangement, and rendering of swaras in the suit composition is copyrightable as an original work. The Plaintiff never seeks copyright on the Raga or any particular note but insists that the style of dragging, switching, and arranging the notes from Aroha and Avroha gives the composition uniqueness.
  • The Defendants allegedly admitted access to the suit composition but assert independent creation motivated by Dagarvani. The Plaintiff, however, contends that inspiration is not enough to justify substantial replication.
  • Reference is made to Ram Sampath v. Rajesh Roshan[2] and Sulamangalam R. Jayalakshmi v. Meta Musicals[3] to contend that partial copying of a musical composition can constitute infringement.
  • Reliefs prayed for are interim injunction for deletion of the infringing part or monetary deposit, and in the alternative, credit in film rolls to the Junior Dagar Brothers.

Defendant’s Submissions

  • Mr. Amit Sibal, senior counsel for Defendant No. 1, contended that the Plaintiff has failed to present any evidence establishing that the suit composition is an original creation of the Junior Dagar Brothers. The inlay card of the 1996 album “Shiva Mahadeva by the Dagar Brothers” does not credit the Junior Dagar Brothers with a copyright. He stressed that Dhrupad, a Hindustani classical music genre based on the Samaveda, is orally transmitted by traditional compositional rules. As opposed to genres like Thumri or Khayal, there is little scope for creative difference within Dhrupad, so the range of copyrightable material is narrow.
  • The suit composition, being Dhrupad genre and composed over Raga Adana, is largely in the public domain. The Plaintiff did not specify what parts are original and what parts are traditional. Defendant No. 1 averred that similarities in versions are unavoidable because Raga Adana has a fixed structure and referred to ‘Raga Parichay’ by Harishchandra Shrivastava to demonstrate that the Plaintiff’s comparison of notation is nothing more than reflecting standard features of the raga. Concerts performed by Ustad Zia Fariduddin Dagar and Pandit Ritwik Sanyal were conducted in court in order to exhibit the composition’s extensive public utilization.
  • It was pointed out that a number of Dagar family members have played the same piece, but the Plaintiff’s assignment dated 10 October 2023 does not mention them. The Plaintiff first denied issuing any permissions but subsequently claimed performances were approved. He also shifted his stance from sole authorship to co-ownership in the replication.
  • The song supposedly contains lines essential to other ragas such as Darbari Kanada and Jaunpuri, and old works such as Amir Khusro’s 13th-century “Yaar-e-Man Biya Biya.” Defendant No. 1 contended that the challenged song employs western music principles and various ragas, with new harmonies, and is not from Raga Adana.
  • In support of their contention, parties relied on Marcus Gray v. Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson[4], Apple v. Microsoft[5], and R.G. Anand[6], it was argued that general ideas and traditional elements cannot be monopolized. Expert Sai Shravanam testified that Sul Taal does not exist and the song blends Ragas Jaunpuri, Darbari Kanada, Bihag, and Hameer Kalyani.
  • As the impugned song was released on 29 March 2023 and the suit is instituted in October 2023, Defendant No. 1 submitted that no interim injunction is justified on account of delay.

The Court’s Decision: Findings and Analysis

  • In Indian copyright law, especially after the 1995 amendment, a musical work under Section 2(p) does not have to be graphically notated to be protected. This was done to include oral traditions such as Hindustani classical music. The composer, as defined under Section 2(ffa), is the author and initial owner under Section 17. Judicial remarks, such as by Justice Krishna Iyer, acknowledged the insufficiency of previous laws for Indian traditions. Therefore, even oral word-of-mouth and unwritten works can be copyrighted if they are original. The Court, accordingly, held that the suit composition by the Junior Dagar Brothers is an original musical work deserving copyright protection.
  • While determining whether the suit composition constitutes an original musical work deserving copyright protection, the Court went into the depth of structure and components of Hindustani classical music in great detail. A musical work in this tradition, although founded on a Raga (e.g., Raga Adana), may be original in nature if it expresses the composer’s ability, judgement, and personal expression by means of decisions in swaras, tempo, aalap, and organization. The Court made it clear that while Ragas and swaras are in the public domain, the particular choice and combination by the composer constitutes an original expression. Therefore, originality lies in the unique creative expression, not the traditional elements themselves.
  • The court held that the plaintiff had prima facie established the Junior Dagar Brothers—Late Ustad N. Zahiruddin Dagar and Late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar—as the authors of the original musical composition ‘Shiva Stuti’ in Raga Adana, Sultaal, under the Dagarvani tradition. The Court used proof from the archival performance in the 1978 Holland Festival, handwritten lyrics, confirmations by family members, and licensing agreements with PAN Records and Navras Records to determine that the composition was first by the Junior Dagar Brothers, and no conflicting evidence was submitted by the defendants.
  • The Court held that ‘Veera Raja Veera’ is not merely inspired by but identical to ‘Shiva Stuti’ in its swaras, bhava, and aural impact, despite lyrical changes. Rejecting the defendants’ test of super-substantial similarity, it ruled that the soul of the original composition was unlawfully copied.
  • In determining the relief, the Court recognized that the movie Ponniyin Selvan-2 (PS-2), with the offending song Veera Raja Veera, had already been released at the time of filing the suit. While parties were invited to settle the issue amicably, no settlement was affected. The song is still available on OTT platforms and online. Referring to Ram Sampat v. Rajesh Roshan, the Court reiterated that infringement depends on whether the soul of the original work has been adopted. As Veera Raja Veera was held to be identical in terms of swaras, bhava, and aural effect to Shiva Stuti, the Court provided due relief.

Analysis and Conclusion

The Court’s decision upholds the protection of traditional oral works under contemporary copyright law, recognizing the originality of compositions within Hindustani classical music. In spite of the Defendants’ contention regarding public domain material, the Court reiterated the creative decisions taken by the Junior Dagar Brothers in the arrangement of the Raga, entitling them to rightful copyright protection. The claim of infringement was maintained because the similarity between the compositions was quite considerable. The case emphasizes legal acknowledgement of creative work in oral tradition and ensures safeguarding moral rights in musical compositions.

[1] Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman & Ors., CS(COMM) 773/2023.

[2] Ram Sampath v. Rajesh Roshan, 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 370.

[3] Sulamangalam R. Jayalakshmi v. Meta Musicals, 2000 SCC OnLine Mad 381.

[4] Marcus Gray v. Katheryn Elizabeth Hudson, 28 F. 4th 87 (9th Cir. 2022).

[5] Apple Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994).

[6] R.G. Anand v. Delux Films, (1978) 4 SCC 118.