The Delhi High Court has set aside an interim injunction against music composer AR Rahman in the copyright dispute regarding the song “Veera Raja Veera” from the 2023 Tamil film Ponniyin Selvan 2. The injunction was previously ordered by a single-judge bench following a suit filed by classical singer Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, who alleged that the composition copied the musical structure, rhythm, and beat of “Shiva Stuti,” a work attributed to his father and uncle.
A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla allowed Rahman’s appeal, stating that the single judge had erred in presuming copyright based on performance rather than authorship. The Court clarified that it did not rule on the substantive issue of infringement but found fundamental errors in the principle applied by the single judge—specifically, that a performer cannot automatically be considered the composer (and thus copyright holder) under the law.
Rahman, through his legal team, argued that “Shiva Stuti” is a traditional Dhrupad composition in the public domain and that “Veera Raja Veera” was an original work using Western musical principles. The Division Bench stayed the order to change credits and costs but maintained the Rs 2 crore deposit requirement, pending final adjudication. The detailed judgment is expected to follow.
Key legal points from the Delhi High Court order granting relief to AR Rahman in the copyright case over the song “Veera Raja Veera” include:
- The Division Bench set aside the interim injunction issued by the single-judge, on the principle that the single-judge erred in granting the injunction without going into the merits of the infringement claim.
- The Court clarified that it did not make any ruling on whether copyright infringement actually occurred; it only addressed the procedural and legal appropriateness of the injunction.
- The Bench highlighted that copyright claims must consider the distinction between authorship and performance, noting that the plaintiff, while a performer of the referenced composition, might not hold copyright in it.
- It acknowledged the defense argument that “Shiva Stuti” is a traditional composition part of public domain Dhrupad music, and that Rahman’s composition draws on broader musical principles with original layering.
- It stayed the direction to change credits and costs imposed by the single judge but required a deposit of Rs 2 crore pending further proceedings.
- The Court emphasized adherence to copyright law principles and cautioned against preliminary orders that might pre-judge substantive rights without detailed examination.
These points underline the importance of carefully balancing interim relief in copyright suits, respecting traditional compositions’ public domain status, and clarifying authorship versus performance rights in musical works.
Under Indian copyright law, the term “composer” is defined specifically in relation to musical works.
According to Section 2(ffa) of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957:
- A “composer” is the person who creates or composes the music, regardless of whether the music is recorded or not in any graphical notation. This means the composer is the author of the musical work itself.
- The composer holds the copyright over the musical work, which grants exclusive rights such as reproduction, public performance, adaptation, and distribution.
- Copyright law also recognizes joint authorship in cases where two or more composers collaborate on a musical piece, with shared rights and protections for all contributors.
- The musical work extends to music alone, excluding any accompanying lyrics or words, which may be separately protected under literary rights.
This definition and rights accorded to composers form the core of copyright protection for musical compositions in India, ensuring composers can control and benefit from their original creations.