There should be acknowledgement of Ustad Dagar: Supreme Court to AR Rahman in Veera Raja Veera copyright case

The Supreme Court on Friday told music composer AR Rahman that there should be "some acknowledgment" of Dhrupad vocalist Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar with respect to 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 and Justice Joymalya Bagchi noted that Dagar has made out a case on originality though the authorship aspect needs to be examined and merely because Dagar performed first does not automatically confer authorship on him.

"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 Court told Dagar.

The Bench also told Rahman that the Dagarwani tradition's contribution needs to be acknowledged.

"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," the Court told Rahman's counsel.

"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," Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared on behalf of Rahman, said.

"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," Justice Bagchi said.

Singhvi then sought time to take instructions.

The Court then proceeded to adjourn the case to be heard next on February 20, Friday.

The Court also sustained the direction of the High Court single-judge to Rahman to deposit ₹2 crore with the Registrar General of the High Court, pending disposal of the suit.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by Dagar against 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 has claimed that the composition of the song was copied from the song Shiva Stuti, composed by his father Nasir Faiyazuddin Dagar and uncle Zahiruddin Dagar. 

According to Dagar's plea, 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 of the High Court recognised a prima facie case of copyright infringement and directed that song's credit should be shared with 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.

According to Dagar's appeal, the High Court Division Bench exceeded the permissible scope of appellate scrutiny while interfering with an interim injunction granted by the single-judge.

As per the petition, the Division Bench wrongly held that there was insufficient proof of authorship of the Dhrupad composition Shiva Stuti.

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 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, the Delhi High Court's Division Bench disregarded this settled position and incorrectly suggested that fixation is not sufficient under Indian copyright law.

Another key ground raised in 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 has contended that the High Court erred in treating the provision as mandatory, when it is merely presumptive.

As per the petition, 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.

During the hearing today, the Court also sought to carve out the claim made by Dagar.

"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," Justice Bagchi remarked

"What is protected under the copyright act is composition..I am not on singing etc. My father and brother had created it," the counsel for Dagar said.

"You are claiming originality of the raga?" the Court asked.

"Not the raga," Dagar's counsel replied.

"You say that the raga is in chauthal but you made it in sur thal....and one swara is in extended ga," the Bench said.

"The single-judge had reproduced the composition and compared. My right is in composition and not the way of singing," the counsel said.

The matter will be heard next on February 20.

[Read Live Coverage]