‘There Should Be Some Acknowledgment’: Supreme Court Flags Dagarwani Tradition In AR Rahman’s ‘Veera Raja Veera’ Copyright Dispute

‘There Should Be Some Acknowledgment’: Supreme Court Flags Dagarwani Tradition In AR Rahman’s ‘Veera Raja Veera’ Copyright Dispute

Introduction

The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by noted Dhrupad vocalist Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar challenging a Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court which had set aside an interim order granting him relief in a copyright dispute concerning the song Veera Raja Veera from the film Ponniyin Selvan II. The dispute centres around allegations that the composition of the impugned song infringes the Dhrupad composition Shiva Stuti, attributed to the Junior Dagar Brothers.

During the hearing, the Court observed that while the issue of authorship requires examination, the aspect of originality prima facie merits consideration. The Bench also remarked that there ought to be “some acknowledgment” of the Dagarwani tradition’s contribution.

Factual Background

The appellant, Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, claims that the composition of Veera Raja Veera, composed by A. R. Rahman, was substantially derived from Shiva Stuti, a Dhrupad composition created by his 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, beat structure and musical framework are identical to Shiva Stuti, which has been performed globally and commercially released, including by PAN Records.

Rahman has denied the allegations, contending that Shiva Stuti is a traditional Dhrupad composition forming part of the public domain and rooted in the broader Dagarvani tradition. It was further submitted that Veera Raja Veera is an original composition created using Western musical structures and layered arrangements, comprising 227 distinct layers, going beyond conventional Hindustani classical structures.

The dispute first came before the Delhi High Court, where a Single Judge in April 2025 found a prima facie case of copyright infringement and directed that credit for the song be shared with the Junior Dagar Brothers. The Single Judge also directed Rahman and the production entities to deposit ₹2 crore with the Registrar General of the High Court pending disposal of the suit.

However, in September 2025, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court set aside the interim order, holding that Dagar had not established a sufficient prima facie case of authorship or originality. The Division Bench observed that the composition was traceable to the Dhrupad and Dagarvani tradition and could not, at the interim stage, be exclusively attributed to the Junior Dagar Brothers.

Procedural Background

Before the Supreme Court, Dagar contended that the Division Bench exceeded the permissible scope of appellate interference in matters concerning interim injunctions. It was argued that the Single Judge had correctly recognised fixation of the composition through a 1978 Amsterdam recording and its commercial release as valid proof of authorship under Indian copyright law.

Dagar further argued that the Division Bench erred in its interpretation of Section 55(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which provides a rebuttable presumption of authorship where a person’s name appears in association with a work. It was contended that the provision is presumptive and not mandatory, and absence of written notation does not defeat a claim of authorship, as fixation through sound recordings suffices under Indian law.

Issues

1. Whether Dagar has established a prima facie case of originality in respect of the composition Shiva Stuti.

2. Whether first performance of a composition necessarily establishes authorship.

3. Whether the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the interim order of the Single Judge.

4. Whether the deposit of ₹2 crore directed by the Single Judge ought to be sustained pending adjudication.

Contentions of the Parties

Dagar contended that the protectable right claimed is not in the raga per se, but in the specific composition and arrangement of the Dhrupad piece. It was argued that Indian copyright law protects compositions irrespective of whether they are reduced to written notation, and that fixation through recordings constitutes sufficient proof.

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi queried whether the claim was over the raga itself or over a particular arrangement within a specific taal. Dagar clarified that the claim pertained to the composition in a particular structure and not to the raga as such.

On behalf of Rahman, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the composition was rooted in a long-standing Dhrupad tradition and had been performed publicly for decades without objection. It was submitted that the mere fact of earlier performance does not confer authorship and that the impugned song is an independently created work.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court observed that Dagar had prima facie made out a case on originality, though the aspect of authorship would require closer scrutiny. The Court clarified that first performance does not automatically establish authorship and that authorship must be independently established through evidence.

The Bench noted that the Dagarwani tradition has played a significant role in shaping Hindustani classical music and that its contribution cannot be ignored. The Court remarked that if classical gharanas had not contributed to shastriya sangeet, modern compositions might not have evolved in their present form. The Bench indicated that some acknowledgment of the traditional contribution may be warranted.

While not expressing a final opinion on the merits, the Court sustained the direction requiring Rahman to deposit Rs. 2 crore with the Registrar General of the High Court pending disposal of the suit. The matter was adjourned to 20 February 2026 for further hearing, and the Court granted time to Rahman’s counsel to seek instructions.

Decision

The Supreme Court did not pass a final adjudicatory order on merits but made the following operative observations and directions:

• Prima facie case on originality was noted in favour of Dagar, subject to examination of authorship.
• The requirement of acknowledgment of the Dagarwani tradition was emphasised.
• The direction to deposit ₹2 crore as ordered by the Single Judge was sustained.

The matter was adjourned to 20 February 2026 for further hearing.