Dhrupad maestro Wasifuddin Dagar has moved the Supreme Court of India against the Delhi High Court’s decision that set aside interim relief in his copyright dispute with composer A. R. Rahman over the song Veera Raja Veera. Dagar claims the song copies the musical structure of Shiva Stuti, composed by the late Junior Dagar Brothers, and argues that the High Court wrongly rejected his authorship and moral rights claims.
Renowned Dhrupad vocalist Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar has approached the Supreme Court of India challenging a decision of the Delhi High Court which had set aside an interim relief granted to him in a copyright dispute involving composer A. R. Rahman and others over the song Veera Raja Veera from the film Ponniyin Selvan II.
A Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice N.V. Anjaria on Tuesday adjourned the matter to February 13, Friday. The case before the Supreme Court challenges a September 2025 judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court which overturned an interim order earlier passed by a single judge in favour of Dagar.
The dispute relates to Dagar’s claim that the song Veera Raja Veera was copied from Shiva Stuti, a Dhrupad composition created by his late father Nasir Faiyazuddin Dagar and uncle Zahiruddin Dagar, together known as the Junior Dagar Brothers.
According to Dagar, while the lyrics of Veera Raja Veera may be different, its taal, beat and overall musical structure are identical to Shiva Stuti, which was performed internationally by the Junior Dagar Brothers and later released in albums by PAN Records.
Before the Delhi High Court, A.R. Rahman denied the allegation of copying and argued that Shiva Stuti is a traditional Dhrupad composition belonging to the public domain.
It was further contended that Veera Raja Veera is an original creation composed using Western musical fundamentals with “227 distinct layers”, which, according to Rahman, goes far beyond the conventions of Hindustani classical music.
In April 2025, a single judge of the Delhi High Court found that Dagar had made out a prima facie case of copyright infringement. The court directed that the song should also credit Dagar’s late father and uncle, Faiyazuddin Dagar and Zahiruddin Dagar, as composers.
The single judge also ordered Rahman and the production entities to deposit ₹2 crore with the Registrar General of the High Court pending final disposal of the suit.
However, this interim order was later set aside by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench held that Dagar had failed to establish sufficient prima facie proof of authorship or originality.
It observed that the composition appeared to draw from the broader Dhrupad and Dagarvani tradition and could not, at the interim stage, be treated as an original work exclusively attributable to the Junior Dagar Brothers.
This Division Bench ruling has now been challenged before the Supreme Court. Dagar has argued that the appellate court exceeded the permissible limits of judicial scrutiny while interfering with an interim injunction granted by the single judge.
His plea states that the Division Bench wrongly concluded that there was insufficient proof of authorship of Shiva Stuti and failed to appreciate that Indian copyright law does not require musical compositions to be written down in notation.
According to Dagar, fixation of a musical work through sound recordings is legally sufficient proof of authorship. He has relied on the single judge’s earlier finding that the 1978 Amsterdam performance recording of Shiva Stuti and its commercial release by PAN Records amounted to valid fixation under law. Dagar’s plea alleges that the Division Bench ignored this settled position and incorrectly suggested that fixation is not required under Indian copyright law.
Another major issue raised before the Supreme Court relates to the interpretation of Section 55(2) of the Copyright Act. This provision states that when an author’s name appears on a published work, it is presumed that the person is the author unless proven otherwise. Dagar has argued that the Division Bench wrongly treated this provision as mandatory rather than presumptive.
He has clarified that the absence of an author’s name on a publication does not defeat a claim of authorship, as Section 55(2) only creates a rebuttable presumption and not an exclusionary rule.
Dagar has also challenged the High Court’s approach to determining originality, arguing that the Division Bench wrongly applied standards similar to “inventive step” from patent law to copyright disputes. His plea emphasises that copyright protection does not require novelty or innovation, but only that the work originates from the author and is not copied.
Finally, Dagar has contended that the Division Bench failed to adequately consider the moral rights of authors protected under Section 57 of the Copyright Act. He has argued that the refusal to recognise the Junior Dagar Brothers as composers affects their right to authorship and attribution, which continues even after the author’s death.
The Supreme Court will now hear the matter further on February 13.
Case Title:
Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar Vs AR Rahman
Click Here to Read More Reports On AR Rahman
