The Supreme Court of India addressed A. R. Rahman, highlighting Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar and “Veera Raja Veera” from Ponniyin Selvan II, claims. Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said initial performance alone does not decide authorship and requires examination.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, addressed music composer AR Rahman, emphasizing that “some acknowledgment” should be given to Dhrupad vocalist Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar concerning the song “Veera Raja Veera” from the film Ponniyin Selvan II.
A Bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi recognized that Dagar had established a case for originality, although the question of authorship needs further examination. The Court pointed out that Dagar’s initial performance does not automatically confer authorship upon him.
The bench explained to Dagar,
“In originality, you have made out a case and on authorship we will examine. First performance does not necessarily mean authorship. Your case is more of an inference from the first performance that it is authorship. But the other side brought in the Khusro version etc. Thus, this needs independent evidence from you that this was not there before the dagar tradition of singing dhrupad in sur thal,”
The Bench also highlighted the importance of acknowledging the contribution of the Dagarwani tradition.
The Court remarked to Rahman’s counsel,
“The predecessor of the defendant were a part of the Dagarwani tradition. The originality of the tune is undisputed. If these gharanas would not have contributed to the shastriya sangeet, do you think these modern signers would have managed?”
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Rahman, stated,
“This is performed as a performance in 1991 by Gundecha brothers and many other times but he never objected. But during our rendition he objected.”
Justice Bagchi responded,
“See, there should be some acknowledgement. They are traditional worshippers of the classical music. He is not in the competitive domain. They want respect and recognition.”
Singhvi then requested time to consult further.
The Court subsequently adjourned the case for a hearing on February 20, Friday, and reiterated its previous directive for Rahman to deposit Rs 2 crore with the Registrar General of the High Court pending the suit’s outcome. Previously, a Division Bench had granted Rahman some relief regarding this issue.
Dagar is appealing against a September 2025 ruling from a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which had overturned a single-judge’s interim order related to his dispute over the “Veera Raja Veera” song. Dagar asserts that the composition closely resembles the song “Shiva Stuti,” created by his father, Nasir Faiyazuddin Dagar, and uncle, Zahiruddin Dagar.
While noting that “Veera Raja Veera” features different lyrics, Dagar claims its rhythm, beat, and musical structure are identical to “Shiva Stuti,” which has been performed globally by the Junior Dagar brothers and released by PAN Records.
In response to Dagar’s claims, Rahman argued that “Shiva Stuti” is a traditional composition within the Dhrupad genre and part of the public domain. He maintained that “Veera Raja Veera” is an original work composed using Western musical elements and contains 227 distinct layers, far surpassing the norms of Hindustani classical music.
In April 2025, a single-judge of the High Court acknowledged a prima facie case of copyright infringement and instructed that credit for the song should also be given to Dagar’s late father and uncle (Faiyazuddin Dagar and Zahiruddin Dagar), collectively known as the Junior Dagar Brothers. The High Court also ordered Rahman and the production entities to deposit Rs 2 crore with the Registrar General pending the suit’s resolution.
However, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court later reversed this interim order, concluding that Dagar had not sufficiently demonstrated a prima facie case of authorship or originality. The Division Bench determined that the composition drew from the broader Dhrupad and Dagarvani traditions and could not be exclusively attributed to the Junior Dagar Brothers at the interim stage. This ruling is now being contested in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court queried,
“If these gharanas would not have contributed to the shastriya sangeet, do you think these modern signers would have managed?”
Dagar’s appeal holds that the High Court Division Bench overstepped its authority by interfering with an interim injunction granted by the single-judge. The appeal argues that the Division Bench wrongly concluded insufficient proof of authorship for the Dhrupad composition “Shiva Stuti.”
Dagar’s plea asserts that Indian copyright law does not necessitate musical works to be written down, and sound recordings constitute valid proof of authorship. The single-judge had previously found that the 1978 Amsterdam performance recording and its commercial release by PAN Records met the legal requirement for fixation.
Moreover, Dagar claims the High Court’s Division Bench overlooked this established standpoint, incorrectly stating that fixation is not adequate under Indian copyright law. Another significant argument raised by Dagar is the Division Bench’s interpretation of Section 55(2) of the Copyright Act, which presumes that a named author is the creator of a published work, unless disproven.
Dagar contends that the High Court misapplied this provision, which is merely presumptive, and that the absence of an author’s name on a publication does not nullify an authorship claim. Section 55(2) is understood to create a rebuttable presumption, not an exclusionary rule.
During the hearing, the Court sought to clarify Dagar’s claims, asking,
“The issue is whether you (Dagar) are the creator. Of course, you can perform. It has to be seen whether you got it from the Dagar tradition and performed in 1976.”
Dagar’s counsel clarified,
“What is protected under the copyright act is composition…I am not on singing etc. My father and brother had created it,”
The Court asked,
“You are claiming originality of the raga?”
Dagar’s counsel answered,
“Not the raga,”
The Bench noted,
“You say that the raga is in chauthal but you made it in sur thal…and one swara is in extended ga,”
Dagar’s counsel stated,
“The single-judge had reproduced the composition and compared. My right is in composition and not the way of singing,”
The matter is set for further hearing on February 20.
Case Title: Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar Vs AR Rahman