Shiva Stuti Copyright Dispute: Oral Tradition, Authorship, and Moral Rights in Ustad Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman

Introduction

Looking to master Indian Copyright Law jurisprudence? Read our full Copyright Law Guide.

The Shiva Stuti dispute (Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman & Ors.) has once again raised an important issue regarding the authorship and moral rights in the copyright sphere. This litigation touches upon the interplay between India’s classical music heritage and modern copyright law. The dispute, before reaching the Supreme Court, traveled through two levels of the Delhi High Court: first before the Single Judge and subsequently before the Division Bench, where the conflict between orally passed down knowledge and the documented essentials of the modern copyright realm was thoroughly discussed.

The decision of the Supreme Court not only concerns the present case but also concerns the future development as to how such disputes shall be viewed, keeping in mind the contemporary developments, and what approach shall be adopted by the Court while dealing with such issues.

Background

Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, son and legal successor of the late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and nephew of the late Ustad N. Zahiruddin Dagar (the “Junior Dagar Brothers”), filed a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court in 2023. He alleged that “Veera Raja Veera”, composed by A.R. Rahman for the movie Ponniyin Selvan II, reproduced the core melodic structure, swara patterns, rhythm cycle and emotional expression of “Shiva Stuti”, which is a Dhrupad composition attributed to the Junior Dagar Brothers in the 1970s and first publicly recorded at the Royal Tropical Institute, Amsterdam, on 22 June 1978.

The plaintiff further alleged that two of his own disciples, who had performed “Shiva Stuti” in tarana-style form for Rahman’s consideration, shared the composition with the composer without authorisation. He sought injunctive relief, recognition of moral rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, damages, and attribution in the film’s credits, which initially described the song only as “based on a Dagarvani tradition Dhrupad”.

When presented before the Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court, Justice Pratibha M. Singh relied upon the approach of assessing originality first, then ownership, thus holding that the impugned song was “not just inspired but is in fact identical in Swaras, Bhava, and Aural impact” to “Shiva Stuti” and held that the failure to credit the Dagar Brothers amounted to a serious violation of moral rights, drawing on the principles laid down in Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005).

However, when an appeal was filed before the division bench of the Delhi High Court, the decision of the single bench was overruled by the division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla; it was held that Single Judge had erred in principle by treating rendition of the composition by the Dagar Brothers as giving rise to a presumption of authorship.

The Bench explained that it was not making a final decision on originality or authorship but stated that the evidence (like commercial CDs and agreements) only showed a performer’s right, as none of the documents identified the Dagar Brothers as the composers. reiterating that copyright ownership requires cogent proof of authorship, distinct from performance rights.

Issues

While hearing the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Division Bench’s order by the plaintiff, the following issues were raised before the Supreme Court:-

1.) Whether the Division Bench erred in setting aside the interim protection granted by the Single Judge.

2.) Whether the Division Bench applied an unduly high evidentiary threshold at the interim stage.

3.) Whether the plaintiff, as legal successor of the deceased composers, was entitled to interim enforcement of moral rights (attribution) under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

The Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court disposed of the Special Leave Petition after A.R. Rahman agreed, without prejudice to his rights in the pending suit, to amend the song’s credits to read: “Composition inspired by the Dagarwani tradition Dhrupad, first recorded as “Shiv Stuti” by late Ustad Nasir Faiyazuddin Dagar and Ustad Nasir Zahiruddin Dagar, popularly known as the Junior Dagar brothers.” The court directed that this modification be made. The court ordered that OTT platforms and social media reflect this modification within five weeks.

The Supreme Court, rather than ruling on the merits of the Division Bench’s judgment, primarily limited itself to address this composition-level authorship alone as none of the parties challenged the originality of the tune itself. The Bench actively persuaded the parties toward an interim, non-adjudicatory resolution, remarking that some acknowledgement was warranted given that the music in Ponniyin Selvan II was admittedly drawn from a composition first performed by Dagar’s predecessors.

The concession was noted as not affecting the issues that still need to be decided in the main commercial lawsuit, which means that the important questions about copyright infringement, originality, and authorship of “Shiva Stuti” are still waiting to be resolved by the Delhi High Court. The Rs 2 crore deposited by the defendants pursuant to the single judge’s earlier order and the Rs 2 lakh costs remain subject to the suit’s final outcome.

Impact on Practitioners

The following points summarise the practical takeaways for lawyers handling music copyright and moral rights disputes:

Originality Within Tradition

The court has affirmed the notion that any micro-level expression of creative choices within the tradition is protectable under the Copyright Act, 1957, even if that expression is in the public domain, by recognising that the raga in itself is in the public domain and to solely rely on the raga framework alone is not enough to grant rights affiliated with the ownership of the music composition.

Performance Is Not Proof of Authorship

The decision delivered by the single-judge bench in the Delhi High Court majorly relied on the premise that evidence was submitted before the High Court asserting the authorship of the “Shiva Stuti”. However, the Court did not take into consideration the fact that rendering or performing a composition does not raise a presumption of having composed it. Therefore, families of the classical musicians should proactively document composition, distinct from performance, to avoid this evidentiary gap in future disputes.

Moral Rights Are Contingent on Authorship

The discussed case is primarily based on the tussle between moral rights and performance rights. As per the Division Bench judgement, moral rights stem from authentic ownership. If the authorship of the creative work is undocumented or contended, then the claim for the moral rights may not hold strong ground.

Interim Relief Standards in Copyright Suits

From the whole timeline of the case (from the Delhi High Court to filing an appeal before the Supreme Court), it can be inferred that the courts distinguish sharply between interim and final findings, as a single judge’s prima facie view on originality/authorship was reversed on appeal because it shifted the evidentiary burden onto the defendant or inferred authorship from insufficient material.

Judicial Preference for Negotiated Attribution

The Supreme Court’s own approach in this case signals a preference for a pragmatic credit arrangement rather than ruling prematurely on disputed ownership at the interim stage. This new approach reflects the evolved legal landscape where both the commercial aspects and economic harm were also considered before adjudicating disputed ownership at the interim stage.

Also Read: Licensed but Not Consented: Music Assignment, Section 57 Moral Rights, and Contextual Integrity in India

Conclusion

The Shiva Stuti case very briefly presents the ongoing trend of copyright tussle between the traditional classical music gharanas, to whom the knowledge is being passed down generation to generation orally, and the big music production houses. The recurring conflict between these two makes it difficult to maintain the slim balance between the promotion of the traditional musical heritage and the strict modern copyright doctrine.

As disputes over traditional and folk-derived compositions grow more frequent in the film industry, the deeper questions of authorship, originality, and the enforceability of moral rights by the heirs of deceased composers belonging to an oral classical tradition arise. This case is likely to guide future litigation on the documentation and proof required to establish authorship in collectively practised art forms.