Ustad Wasifuddin Dagar moves Supreme Court over ‘Veera Raja Veera’ copyright dispute with AR Rahman

Dhrupad vocalist Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to quash an order that had granted him interim relief in a copyright dispute with composer AR Rahman and others over the song Veera Raja Veera from the film Ponniyin Selvan II [Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar Vs AR Rahman].

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Anjariam on Tuesday adjourned the case till February 13, Friday.

Dagar has challenged a ruling passed in September 2025 by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which overturned a single judge’s interim order in his dispute over the Veera Raja Veera song.

Dagar claims that the composition of the song was copied from the song Shiva Stuti, composed by his father Nasir Faiyazuddin Dagar and uncle Zahiruddin Dagar. 

Dagar alleged that while Veera Raja Veera contains different lyrics, its taal, beat and musical structure are identical to Shiva Stuti, which was performed globally by the Junior Dagar brothers and included in albums released by PAN Records.

Before the Delhi High Court, the song's composer, AR Rahman, denied the allegations, stating that Shiv Stuti is a traditional composition within the Dhrupad genre, part of the public domain. It was also argued that Veera Raja Veera is an original work, composed using Western musical fundamentals with 227 distinct layers, far beyond the conventions of Hindustani classical music.

In April 2025, a single judge Bench of the High Court recognised a prima facie case of copyright infringement and directed that the song also be credited to Dagar's late father and uncle (Faiyazuddin Dagar and Zahiruddin Dagar), popularly known as the Junior Dagar Brothers.

It also directed Rahman and the production entities to deposit ₹2 crore with the Registrar General of the High Court, pending disposal of the suit

However, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court later set aside the interim order, opining that Dagar had not made out a sufficient prima facie case of authorship or originality. The Division Bench found that the composition drew from the broader Dhrupad and Dagarvani tradition and could not, at the interim stage, be treated as an original work attributable exclusively to the Junior Dagar Brothers.

This Division Bench order has now been challenged before the top court.

Dagar has argued that the Division Bench exceeded the permissible scope of appellate scrutiny while interfering with an interim injunction granted by the single judge.

His plea adds that the Division Bench wrongly held that there was insufficient proof of authorship of the Dhrupad composition Shiva Stuti, composed by the late Junior Dagar Brothers. It asserts that Indian copyright law does not require musical works to be reduced to written notation, and that fixation through sound recordings constitutes valid proof of authorship.

The single judge Bench had earlier accepted that the 1978 Amsterdam performance recording of the composition and its commercial release by PAN Records amounted to fixation under law. According to Dagar's plea before the Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court's Division Bench disregarded this settled position and incorrectly suggested that fixation is not a requirement under Indian copyright law.

Another key ground raised Dagar's plea before the top court is the High Court Division Bench’s treatment of Section 55(2) of the Copyright Act. This Section provides that an author whose name appears in association with a published work is presumed to be its author, unless proven otherwise.

Dagar contends that the High Court erred in treating the provision as mandatory, when it is merely presumptive.

The plea emphasises that the absence of an author’s name on a publication does not defeat a claim of authorship, and that Section 55(2) only creates a rebuttable presumption, not an exclusionary rule.

Dagar has also challenged the High Court’s approach to originality of works, arguing that the Division Bench wrongly imported concepts akin to “inventive step” from patent law into copyright analysis.

His plea states that copyright protection does not require proof of novelty or innovation, but only that the work originates from the author and is not a copy.

The plea adds that the High Court's Division Bench also failed to properly consider moral rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act.