Supreme Court to Examine Scope of Interim Relief in ‘Veera Raja Veera’ Copyright Battle Between Dagar and AR Rahman

Supreme Court to Examine Scope of Interim Relief in ‘Veera Raja Veera’ Copyright Battle Between Dagar and AR Rahman

Introduction

A copyright dispute between noted Dhrupad vocalist Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar and composer A. R. Rahman over the song “Veera Raja Veera” from the film Ponniyin Selvan II has now reached the Supreme Court of India. Dagar has challenged a Division Bench ruling of the Delhi High Court that set aside an earlier interim order granting him limited relief in the ongoing copyright infringement suit.

The matter was listed before a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Anjaria, which adjourned the case for further hearing.

Factual Background

Dagar claims that the composition of “Veera Raja Veera” was substantially derived from “Shiva Stuti,” a Dhrupad composition attributed to his late father Nasir Faiyazuddin Dagar and uncle Zahiruddin Dagar, collectively known as the Junior Dagar Brothers.

According to Dagar, while the lyrics of “Veera Raja Veera” differ, its taal, rhythmic structure and melodic architecture are allegedly identical to “Shiva Stuti.” He asserts that the composition was performed internationally by the Junior Dagar Brothers, including a 1978 Amsterdam performance, and commercially released through PAN Records, thereby establishing authorship and fixation.

Rahman and the production entities have denied these allegations, contending that “Shiva Stuti” is a traditional Dhrupad composition forming part of the public domain. They argue that “Veera Raja Veera” is an original work, composed using layered orchestration techniques rooted in Western musical arrangements, incorporating over 200 musical layers and significantly departing from classical Dhrupad conventions.

Procedural Background

In April 2025, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court found that Dagar had established a prima facie case of infringement. The Court directed that the song be credited to the Junior Dagar Brothers and ordered Rahman and associated production entities to deposit ₹2 crore with the Registrar General, pending final adjudication.

However, in September 2025, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside this interim order. The appellate court held that Dagar had not demonstrated a sufficient prima facie case of exclusive authorship or originality. It observed that the composition drew from the broader Dhrupad and Dagarvani traditions and could not, at the interim stage, be treated as an original musical work exclusively attributable to the Junior Dagar Brothers.

Aggrieved by this reversal, Dagar has approached the Supreme Court.

Issues

1. Whether the Division Bench exceeded the permissible scope of appellate review while interfering with an interim injunction granted by the Single Judge.

2. Whether the composition “Shiva Stuti” constitutes an original copyrighted work attributable to the Junior Dagar Brothers.

3. Whether fixation through sound recording is sufficient to establish authorship under Indian copyright law.

4. Whether the Division Bench misinterpreted Section 55(2) of the Copyright Act regarding presumption of authorship.

Contentions of the Parties

Dagar contends that the Division Bench erred in disturbing a well-reasoned interim order that had recognised a prima facie case of infringement. He argues that appellate courts ought not to substitute their own assessment unless the order under challenge is manifestly perverse.

He further submits that Indian copyright law does not mandate reduction of musical works into written notation. According to him, fixation through sound recordings including the 1978 Amsterdam performance constitutes valid evidence of authorship.

On Section 55(2) of the Copyright Act, Dagar argues that the provision merely creates a rebuttable presumption in favour of the named author and does not operate as a mandatory precondition for proving authorship. The absence of attribution in a publication, he contends, does not extinguish a claim. He also asserts that the Division Bench incorrectly imported patent-law concepts of novelty or inventive step into copyright jurisprudence, whereas copyright protection requires only originality in the sense of authorship, not innovation.

Additionally, Dagar has emphasised the protection of moral rights under Section 57, asserting that failure to credit the Junior Dagar Brothers amounts to distortion and misattribution affecting their artistic legacy.

Rahman, on the other hand, maintains that “Shiva Stuti” is part of the traditional Dhrupad repertoire and not an original proprietary composition. He argues that the contested song is an independently created work with a distinct structure and orchestration, and that no exclusive copyright subsists in traditional musical frameworks.

Reasoning and Analysis

At the interim stage before the Single Judge, the Court had found sufficient material to indicate fixation and prima facie originality, particularly relying on archival recordings and commercial releases. The ₹2 crore deposit order and direction to provide credit reflected the Court’s view that reputational and monetary stakes warranted protective relief.

The Division Bench, however, adopted a more cautious approach. It emphasised the traditional nature of Dhrupad compositions and questioned whether the material on record demonstrated exclusive authorship as opposed to derivation from a shared musical lineage. Its reasoning suggested that the evidentiary threshold for interim protection had not been satisfied.

The Supreme Court will now be called upon to examine the scope of appellate interference in interim injunctions, the evidentiary standards for fixation and authorship in musical works, and the balance between traditional art forms and proprietary claims. The case also raises important questions about how Indian copyright law treats oral and performance-based traditions in classical music.

Decision

The Supreme Court has, for the present, adjourned the matter. The final determination on the validity of the Division Bench order and the scope of interim relief remains pending.