The ongoing copyright dispute between Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar and composer A.R. Rahman has sparked significant debate around the intersection of intellectual property law and Indian classical music. The case revolves around the song Veera Raja Veera from Mani Ratnam’s Ponniyin Selvan 2, which Dagar alleges is an unauthorized copy of Shiva Stuti, a Dhrupad composition performed by the Junior Dagar Brothers in the 1970s. According to Dagar, the beat, taal, and overall musical structure of the film song are identical to Shiva Stuti, and the use of the composition without proper attribution infringes both economic and moral rights under the Copyright Act, 1957.
On April 18, 2024, the Delhi High Court issued an interim order in favor of the plaintiff. Justice Pratibha M. Singh, acknowledging prima facie infringement, directed the defendants—A.R. Rahman, Madras Talkies, and others—to credit the Dagarvani tradition in the song and deposit ₹2 crore as security. The Court noted that both compositions shared identical swaras, emotion (bhava), and aural effect from the standpoint of a lay listener. It dismissed the defendants’ argument that Shiva Stuti was based on a 13th-century Amir Khusro composition and hence belonged to the public domain, finding no identity between the two.
The Court’s analysis emphasized that while ragas like Adana are part of the public domain, an original selection and arrangement of musical elements within that raga can still enjoy copyright protection. It relied on the “substantial similarity” test as laid out in Ram Sampat v. Rajesh Roshan, assessing whether the essential elements of Shiva Stuti had been reproduced in Veera Raja Veera. Although the Court used the lay listener test, its reliance on an untrained ear in the context of complex classical compositions was questioned by many, who argued that expert evaluation should have been given more weight, especially considering the nuances of Dhrupad music.
Interestingly, while the Court initially recognized copyright in the selection and arrangement of elements in Shiva Stuti, it appeared to shift focus during infringement analysis, giving importance to similarities in individual musical components. This raised concerns about protecting elements that may belong to India’s rich musical commons—such as taals, ragas, and styles that have evolved over centuries through oral transmission. The Court further touched on important issues such as fixation, observing that musical works in Indian classical tradition do not necessarily need to be notated or recorded to be protected, though this creates practical challenges in proving authorship and originality.
An additional layer of complexity arose from the defendants’ conduct. Two of the singers involved had been students of the plaintiff and were familiar with the composition. The defendants had also publicly acknowledged inspiration from the Dagarvani tradition but did not seek permission to use the work, and notably, changed their stance on the raga used in their composition—from Adana to Darbari Kanada—during the proceedings. The Court distinguished between acknowledging influence from a gharana or stylistic tradition and copying a specific work, emphasizing that copyright protects specific expressions rather than general styles or genres.
However, the legal landscape shifted again on May 6, 2025, when a division bench of the Delhi High Court stayed the interim order. This allowed Veera Raja Veera to remain online without any mandatory credit change or financial deposit, pending a full trial. The appellate court noted that while similarities existed, they were not sufficient at this stage to justify the interim relief granted, particularly given the need for more detailed musicological analysis and further evidence.The stay signalled the court’s intent to avoid premature conclusions in cases involving traditional art forms where the lines between inspiration, homage, and infringement are not always clear.
Ultimately, this case underscores the evolving challenge of applying copyright law to classical and traditional music. As Indian courts confront disputes involving oral traditions, shared musical vocabularies, and cultural inheritance, they must strike a balance between protecting original contributions and preserving the public domain. Whether this dispute results in a new precedent or simply draws attention to the limitations of existing frameworks, it has already begun reshaping how we think about ownership and creativity in classical Indian music.
By Chitra C P
