Protecting Creativity in Classical Traditions: Delhi High Court’s Judgment in Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman & Ors.

Introduction

In an important development for Indian intellectual property jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court, in Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman and Ors., decided on 25 April 2025, addressed the nuanced relationship between traditional cultural expressions and modern copyright protections.

The case revolved around whether a musical composition based on traditional Hindustani classical frameworks, specifically the Dhrupad tradition, could be protected under copyright law when parts of it were used without authorization in a contemporary commercial song.

The Court’s decision reinforces the notion that while traditional forms remain public domain, original creativity within those forms can still merit legal protection.

Factual Background

The Plaintiff, Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar — a Padma Shri awardee and leading exponent of the Dagarvani Dhrupad tradition — claimed copyright in the musical composition "Shiva Stuti", originally composed by the Junior Dagar Brothers (his father and uncle) in the 1970s.

It was alleged that the popular song "Veera Raja Veera" from the film Ponniyin Selvan – 2, composed by renowned music director A.R. Rahman, substantially replicated the suit composition without authorization or attribution.

The Plaintiff contended that while the lyrics of the two works were different, the taal (rhythm cycle), raga structure, and the musical framework of Veera Raja Veera bore a striking resemblance to Shiva Stuti.

The Plaintiff sought protection not just for copyright infringement, but also for the violation of moral rights — namely the right to be recognized as the author of an original work.

Key Issues Before the Court

The High Court identified three principal questions:

• Originality: Whether Shiva Stuti was an original work eligible for copyright protection.

• Infringement: Whether Veera Raja Veera infringed upon the Plaintiff’s rights in Shiva Stuti.

• Reliefs: Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to attribution or damages.

The Court’s Findings

1. Originality of the Suit Composition

   The Court held that while ragas and talas themselves are part of the public domain, the specific selection, arrangement, and presentation of musical notes and rhythms can constitute an original musical work entitled to protection.

   Shiva Stuti was found to be a unique composition within Raga Adana, combining technical elements in a manner demonstrating creative expression and skill.

   
   

2. Infringement and Substantial Similarity

   It was observed that the two works shared substantial similarities in their musical framework. Even though the lyrics differed, the beat, mood, and musical arrangement indicated that Veera Raja Veera had drawn heavily from Shiva Stuti without authorization.

   Importantly, the Court clarified that even a small, significant portion of a protected musical work, if copied, can amount to infringement — especially where the copied elements are original and recognizable.

   
   

3. Relief and Interim Directions

   Given the commercial success and widespread dissemination of the song, the Court directed that:

   • Proper attribution must be given to the Junior Dagar Brothers as the original composers.

   • Errors in existing attributions online (where “Dagarvani” was misspelled as “Dargavani”) must be corrected.

   • The matter would proceed for final adjudication regarding damages.

Broader Implications

This judgment is significant because it strikes a careful balance:

• Protection of Tradition: While Indian classical frameworks like ragas and rhythms belong to the public at large, individual creative expressions within them are deserving of protection.

• Recognition of Moral Rights: The decision affirms the importance of acknowledging the original creators, preserving the dignity of artistic contributions.

• Guidance for the Entertainment Industry: Musicians, filmmakers, and composers must exercise caution and due diligence when drawing inspiration from traditional works to avoid infringing upon protected expressions.

To explain it simply — while musical traditions like Raga Adana are free for everyone to use, the way someone uniquely arranges and performs a piece within that tradition can still be their personal creation. If another person copies that specific arrangement and passes it off commercially, they must either take permission or give due credit.

Just like building blocks are common to everyone, but the unique castles people build with them can be legally protected.

Conclusion

At Apar Law, we recognize that intellectual property law must protect not only cutting-edge innovations but also the ancient traditions being carried forward by modern creators.

This case highlights how IP law can coexist with cultural heritage, ensuring that respect for creativity remains central to India's vibrant artistic ecosystem.