In a recent judgement dated April 25, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff in a copyright infringement suit concerning the song “Veera Raja Veera” from the film Ponniyin Selvan 2. The Court further directed the Defendant to give due credit to the Plaintiff in the film for the song, deposit Rs. 2 crores with the Registrar General of the Court and awarded a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs to the Plaintiff.
Brief facts of the present case are the Plaintiff filed the suit to restrain Defendants from utilizing the suit composition as part of sound recording of the song “Veera Raja Veera” without obtaining authorisation from Plaintiff and without attribution of moral rights of the original authors / composers of the suit composition. The Plaintiff argued that though the lyrics of the impugned song are different from the suit composition, the taal / beat are identical. It was also argued that the composition of the impugned song is identical to the suit composition.
Expanding the Definition of Musical Work in Classical Contexts
The court’s interpretation of Section 2(p) of the Copyright Act, 1957, marked a significant shift. It held that a “musical work” need not rely on graphical notation—a departure from Western norms—recognizing the oral traditions central to Indian classical music. This ruling affirmed that compositions like suit composition, passed down through generations, are eligible for copyright protection, broadening the legal framework to embrace India’s cultural realities.
Originality Lies in Expression, Not in Notes or Swaras
The Court made an important distinction between the building blocks of music (such as individual notes or swaras) and their original arrangement by a composer. It held that in case of Indian classical music it is not the individual note or swara of the Raga that the composer may claim copyright on, rather, it is this original expression in the form of selection and arrangement of the common building blocks, requiring high level of skill and understanding of the nuances of Hindustani classical music, that the composer enjoys copyright.
It emphasized that the Junior Dagar Brothers’ skill in selecting and structuring these elements within Raga Adana constituted an original expression, deserving protection.
Dual Threshold for Infringement in case of Musical Work
To establish infringement in case of musical work, the Court applied the two-pronged test of (i) access and (ii) substantial similarity. In the present case since the Defendant No. 5 and 6 are disciples of the Plaintiff and the suit composition was used in their training, hence the firstelement was established unequivocally. To clarify the substantial similarity further, the tests could either be – comprehensive non literal similarity or fragmented literal similarity. While upholding Ram Sampath v. Rajesh Roshan1, the Court held that even a small, vital part of a work, if recognizable, could constitute infringement. It was highlighted the impact on the ear is ultimately more important: what it sounds like matters more than the notes which are written down, to determine the question of infringement. The determination of infringement need not be from the point of view of an expert listener but a lay listener who listens to music. If such a listener finds two works to be similar, then there would be infringement.
Moral Rights and Cultural Impact
The judgment reinforced the moral rights of authorship under Section 57 of the Copyright Act—specifically the rights to paternity (credit) and integrity (protection from distortion). By mandating credit to the Junior Dagar Brothers, the court honoured their legacy and underscored the need to protect cultural heritage in an industry prone to commercialization.
Finally concluding a very lengthy judgment held that the impugned song is not merely based or inspired from the Plaintiff’s composition but in fact is identical with mere change in lyrics (which is outside the purview of the definition of musical work under the Act).
Conclusion
To be devil’s advocate, I think the court failed to fully recognize the Defendant’s argument of test of minimal creativity as laid down in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak. In that case, the Supreme Court held that “…although for establishing a copyright, the creativity standard applies is not that something must be novel or non-obvious, but some amount of creativity in the work to claim a copyright is required. It does require a minimal degree of creativity…”. This boiled down to the fact that although copyright protects only original expression, it is not difficult to meet the famously low bar for originality. It has to be acknowledged; no creative expressions exist in a black hole. Creativity often builds on inspiration, and this decision could blur that line. By protecting a specific arrangement within a raga, the ruling risks chilling adaptations, a cornerstone of musical evolution. The impugned song clearly accredited that the composition is inspired from the Dagarvani tradition along with distinguishable western ingredients. The test of originality in copyright is not as strict as Patents and does not be novel. Further, it must be noted the “lay listener” test introduces ambiguity and subjectivity. What sounds similar to one may not to another, potentially leading to inconsistent rulings.
Authored by: Ms. Vanshika Gupta
Vanshika Gupta is an IP and media law enthusiast currently working at ALG India Law Office. I graduated from Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, Class of 2024.
Leave a Reply