The Supreme Court clarified that its remarks in the A.R. Rahman vs Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar case are only interim and will not affect the final trial. Rahman agreed to update OTT credits acknowledging inspiration from the Dagar composition within five weeks.
The Supreme Court of India heard a Special Leave Petition filed by Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, challenging a Delhi High Court order that lifted the injunction against music composer A. R. Rahman in relation to the song “Veera Raja Veera” from the film Ponniyin Selvan II.
The dispute concerns allegations that the composition draws inspiration from a traditional Dagar composition, and the question before the Court at this stage relates to interim arrangements and credit acknowledgement.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for Mr. Rahman, addressed the Bench and made a significant statement. He submitted,
“My Lords, after Amir Khusro, they are indeed the first renderers — that is what Your Lordships wished us to acknowledge.”
Justice Bagchi responded by indicating that the addition of the names of the two brothers to the credits was what was being sought. In reply, Senior Advocate Singhvi said,
“My answer is an immediate yes, My Lords.”
He further clarified the position of his client, stating,
“Your Lordships may also clarify that there is no tinkering with the order. The media is projecting as if Mr. Rahman has lost the case or admitted plagiarism, which is not the position.”
Concluding his submissions on that aspect, he added,
“In any event, he is also sensitive to these concerns, My Lords.”
At a later stage, Senior Advocate Singhvi also remarked,
“My lord’s in good faith made an observation I’m equally good faith but not responding to that. I have a collection of the press between the last date and today.”
After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court passed an interim order. The Court made it clear that the observations made so far are only limited to interim relief.
It recorded,
“the impugned observations are made only in the context of granting interim relief. Such interim injunctions do not bind the final trial, and the issues on merits must remain open for adjudication during the trial.”
Regarding the amount deposited in the case, the Court noted that there was no valid reason to return it at this stage. The Bench observed,
“there was no acceptable objection warranting its return.”
The Court therefore declined the request to take back the deposit for now, leaving the issue open to be considered during the trial if required.
Importantly, the Court also noted that the matter had already been heard at length earlier. Considering that internationally respected musicians are involved in the dispute, the Bench suggested an alternative interim arrangement to balance the interests of both sides.
Respondent No. 1 agreed that, pending the final outcome of the civil suit, OTT and online streaming platforms would display revised credit slides. As per the agreed arrangement, the credit line will state that the composition is inspired by Dagar and was first recorded by the late Ustad M. Raghav and the nephew of late Ustad N. Zahiruddin Dagar.
The Supreme Court clarified that these directions are purely interim in nature and will not affect the merits of the civil suit pending before the trial court. The Court has directed Respondent No. 1 to implement and display the modified credits within five weeks.
The case continues to draw attention because it involves globally acclaimed artists and raises important questions about musical inspiration, credit acknowledgment, and the difference between plagiarism and traditional influence. The final decision on merits will be taken during the full trial, and the interim observations of the Supreme Court will not prejudice that outcome.
Case Title:
USTAD FAIYAZ WASIFUDDIN DAGAR Vs A.R. RAHMAN
SLP(C) No. 4742/2026
Click Here to Read More Reports On A.R. Rahman
