Declining to interfere with an interim injunction restraining the use of a recreated version of the song ‘En Iniya Pon Nilave’, the Supreme Court has dismissed music composer Ilaiyaraaja’s special leave petition, saying no error of law was committed by the Delhi High Court, but clarifying that the High Court’s observations are only prima facie and were made for deciding the interlocutory issue.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to interfere with an order of the Delhi High Court restraining the use of a recreated version of the song En Iniya Pon Nilave, dismissing the special leave petition filed by music composer Ilaiyaraaja, while clarifying that the High Court’s observations are prima facie [Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Limited].
A Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran passed the order on October 1, 2026 on the petition against the order of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
Background of the case
The dispute concerns the use by Vels Film International Limited of a recreated version of the song. Vels claimed that it held a licence from Ilaiyaraaja under an agreement, while Saregama India Limited contended that it owned the rights through an assignment from the film’s original producer.
A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court granted Saregama an injunction, which Ilaiyaraaja challenged before a Division Bench. In May 2026, the Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla dismissed the appeal, holding that his copyright is limited to the music of the song and does not extend to the lyrics or the sound recording. A review petition against that ruling was also dismissed, following which the present petition was filed in the Supreme Court.
Submissions for Ilaiyaraaja
Senior Advocate C. Aryama Sundaram, for the composer, submitted that the High Court’s order has far-reaching consequences and that three other lawsuits have since been filed on the strength of it. Relying on Section 13(4) of the Copyright Act, 1957, under which the copyright in a cinematograph film or sound recording does not affect the separate copyright in the underlying work, he argued that the purpose of the provision would be defeated.
He pointed to a passage in Saregama’s own pleading stating that, although it had not alleged infringement of a sound recording, it alleged infringement of its copyright in the musical and literary works of the song, and to the High Court’s observation that Ilaiyaraaja was entitled to contract with a third party for use or adaptation of the musical work in the song. Saregama’s case, he said, was about the musical works and not the sound recording, so the right of adaptation lay only with Ilaiyaraaja. When Justice Chandran remarked that he appeared to be claiming the sound recording as well, Sundaram said he was not claiming any sound recording.
On the injunction itself, he submitted that the Single Judge’s order only required a deposit of Rs 30 lakh, which the producers had paid, and that the real dispute was with the findings of the Division Bench. When the Bench asked why the parties were fighting unnecessarily, he said it was because they were injuncting him.
Supreme Court’s order
After hearing the submissions, the Bench held that the High Court had not erred in granting the injunction:
“We are of the view that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the interlocutory order, granting injunction as prayed by the respondent.”
On Sundaram’s request that the Court make it clear that the findings are only prima facie and should not be treated as a precedent, the Bench agreed, observing:
“It is needless to clarify that the observations in the impugned judgment are prima facie, for the purpose of deciding the issue in question.”
The special leave petition was dismissed and the Delhi High Court’s order was left undisturbed.
Why the order matters
The order leaves the interim injunction in place while the suit proceeds, and keeps the Division Bench’s reasoning on the scope of a composer’s rights open to full consideration at trial, since the Supreme Court has said it is only prima facie. The merits of the competing claims of Ilaiyaraaja, Saregama and Vels will have to be decided on evidence.
Case Title: Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Limited
Bench: Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocates C. Aryama Sundaram and Swathi Sukumar, with Advocate-on-Record Naveen Nagarjuna, for the petitioner; Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Advocate Rishabh Choraria (caveat) for the respondent