After a successful run-in cinema, the Tamil film PS-II's song "Veera Raja Verra" became a major topic due to copyright issues. Veera Raja Veera has reignited an age-old debate about the ownership and copyright of folk and classical music, as well as traditional and contemporary compositions that reference prominent ragas. According to tradition, everyone has access to it, but movie composers, musicians and filmmakers use it as inspiration for their future work, marketing it to a global audience and generating money for everyone involved. However, copyrighting historical craftsmen' work is deemed against their culture, resulting in an even larger dilemma. The case has important ramifications for the preservation of classical compositions under Indian copyright law.
Step into the future of legal expertise! Join our Advanced Certification Program in Intellectual Property Law, created by The Legal School in collaboration with Khaitan & Co. Designed for fresh law graduates and professionals, this unique course boosts your legal career. Don’t miss this opportunity—enquire today to secure your spot!
Dagar V. A.R. Rahman: Case Background
In April 2023, Padma Shri awardee and Dhrupad master Ustad Wasifuddin Dagar accused music composer and singer-songwriter A. R. Rahman of utilising a tune that closely mimics a classic Dhrupad composition produced by his father and uncle, known as Dagar Brother. They wrote a song based on the “raga Adana”, which became known as Shiva Stuti. Although the original work was never copyrighted, Dagar claims Rahman has taken it directly from his family's musical tradition. Dagar further claimed that, while the lyrics of Veera Raja Veera has been changed, the rhythm (taal) and beat are similar to Shivs Stuti, which was created in “raga Adana” in the 1970s and played worldwide, including a major 1978 concert in Amsterdam. He also offered a comparison chart of musical notations to back up his argument. Dagar emphasises the value of moral rights and seeks due recognition for the original songwriters. He claims that Rahman and the film's producer, Mani Ratnam's business Madras Talkies has refused to honour the Junior Dagar brothers, leading to the violation of moral rights.
The attorneys for the film's producer, Mani Ratnam's business Madras Talkie, disputed the assertion that Veera Raja Veera was a duplicate of "Shiva Stuti." It claims that Shiva Stuti is rooted in the classic Dhrupad genre of 17th-century Hindustani Classical music and hence belongs to the public domain. The arguments were framed on the grounds that the traditional works cannot be solely owned or copyrighted and Rahman claims that the Veera Raja Veera is a creative work with over 227 melodic layers based on western musical concepts, setting it apart from typical Dhrupad works. According to the Madras Talkies, "Dagar has no locus standi to claim copyright over the composition" because Shiva Stuti has been performed numerous times before, but focussing solely on Rahman leads to the unavoidable conclusion that this petition is filed for monetary gain or publicity purposes. The defence disputes copyright infringement claims that the similarities are accidental and that the composition is completely unique.
In April 2025, Justice Pratibha M. Singh of the Delhi High Court determined that Veera Raja Veera was similar to Shiva Stuti in terms of annotations, notes, emotion, and auditory effect, notwithstanding the lyrics' modifications. The court ordered Rahman and Madras Talkies to deposit two crore rupees and pay two lakhs in expenses along with the compilation to acknowledge the junior Dagar brothers in all renditions of the music, regardless of platform. But, in May 2025, the Delhi High Court's division bench delayed the interim judgement, providing Rahman and the producers with temporary respite. The stay permits the music to be used without mandatory credits or a cash deposit until the next hearing, which is dated on May 23, 2025.
Dagar V. A.R. Rahman: Core Issue
The cases touch upon multiple static and evolving aspects of Indian Copyright law and cultural jurisprudence involving core issues:
1. Copyrightability of Traditional Works
A crucial issue is whether a traditional work, such as Dhrupad, which is usually transmitted orally, can be claimed as intellectual property or not. The Copyright Act of 1957 protects original literary, musical, and artistic works, but it makes no mention of the copyrightability of traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) unless they are fixed and clearly documented.
2. Moral rights -(section 57 of Indian Copyright Act, 1957)
Dagar places a heavy emphasis on moral rights, such as the right to attribution and the protection against labour distortion. These rights are inalienable and will remain with the inventor even if the economic rights are transferred.
3. Public domain v. original creation
The defence rests on the argument that Dhrupad compositions are part of a public domain. Original arrangements or new interpretations of traditional material, on the other hand, can be protected if they demonstrate creativity.
4. Inter- generational Cultural rights
This example illustrates the struggle between intergenerational cultural protectors and modern interpreters, which is becoming more visible in music, dance, and other artistic forms.
5. Recognition of classical composer
Without appropriate acknowledgement, cultural defenders like the Dagar family risk being forgotten even if their work continues to have an impact on popular culture.
6. Role of Judiciary in protecting culture
Courts play a crucial role in determining the breadth of originality, especially in cases when documentation is weak but lineage is strong.
7. Need of protecting traditional knowledge and cultural sensitivity
India's present intellectual property laws are insufficient to cope with orally conveyed knowledge. The case demonstrates the growing need for sui generis legislation. Also, there is a strong requirement for industries such as Bollywood and Tollywood to consult cultural historians or adhere to regulations.
Also, Get to Know About Infringement of Geographical Indication.
Dagar Vs. A.R.Rahman Case Analysis
India's rich repository of old artworks usually resides in a tenuous balance between collective tradition and individual creativity, posing a substantial challenge under copyright law. The Dagar v. A.R. Rahman case exemplifies this dilemma, specifically in terms of balancing cultural preservation with artistic freedom. While A.R. Rahman's innovative adaptations of old ragas have gotten widespread attention, this case leads to an essential question that when does artistic reinterpretation constitute cultural appropriation?
In today's digital age, composers commonly employ technology approaches such as sampling, remastering, and orchestration software to reproduce classical works. These technological interventions, even though artistically stimulating, frequently blurs the line between inspiration and imitation. This leads to pushing the boundaries of copyright protection. The Delhi High Court ordered defendants to pay ₹2 crore for alleged infringement which was later postponed by a division bench. This reflects the judiciary's careful and shifting approach to culturally sensitive subjects. Precedents such as Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005), in which the court recognised the sculptor's moral rights against the state, and R.G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978), in which the court ruled that public domain themes may be reused unless there is a substantial similarity, serve as useful reference points. These instances highlighted the importance of a balanced judicial approach which values both traditional cultural expressions and the ability to adapt current creative forms.
This topic is an important case study for applying Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) to traditional knowledge systems. The disagreement underlines the importance of aligning legal ideas of originality and creativity with the community-based ownership arrangements that support traditional cultural expressions (TCEs). On a global scale, the controversy mirrors long-standing debates about the exploitation of indigenous musical heritage such as the use of traditional African beats in Western pop or the commercial sampling of Native American chants without authorisation. International frameworks, such as the WIPO's (World Intellectual Property Organization) Traditional Cultural Expressions initiative promotes the preservation of this history.
But India's statutory system still remains inadequate for such protection. Classical works are often vulnerable to unlawful alteration or use in the absence of a comprehensive regulatory mechanism to protect cultural content, unless they are acknowledged by the traditional copyright rules. This kind of difference forces courts to decide between modern adaptation and cultural preservation that too sometimes without the guidance of proper legal standards.
Summary
The Dagar v. A.R. Rahman case denotes the difficulty in balancing between tradition and modernity, calling on stakeholders, artists, policymakers and the judiciary to reassess the frameworks that govern creativity in a culturally rich but legally unclear context. The approach now should move from ownership to how India can balance between tradition and innovation, until the verdict is pending in the court. Its legacy should be in developing an intellectual property system that honours classical traditions while still encouraging creative growth instead of damages or attributions.
By: Srushti Vijay Parit
Related Posts:
Dagar V. A.R.Rahman: FAQs
Q1: What is the Dagar v. A.R. Rahman case about?
It concerns a copyright dispute where Ustad Wasifuddin Dagar accuses A.R. Rahman of using a classical Dhrupad composition without credit in the song "Veera Raja Veera."
Q2: What are the main legal issues involved?
Key issues include copyrightability of traditional works, moral rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, and the line between public domain and original creation.
Q3: What did the Delhi High Court initially decide?
In April 2025, the court found similarities between "Veera Raja Veera" and "Shiva Stuti" and ordered compensation and credit to the Dagar family, later stayed by a division bench.
Q4: Can traditional or oral works be copyrighted in India?
Traditional works face legal ambiguity unless they are fixed in tangible form; current laws don't fully protect orally transmitted cultural expressions.
Q5: Why is this case significant?
It sets a precedent in balancing artistic freedom with cultural preservation, highlighting the need for stronger sui generis laws for protecting traditional knowledge in India.
