In a major legal development, the Delhi High Court has ordered music maestro A.R. Rahman and the makers of the film Ponniyin Selvan 2 to deposit ₹2 crore with the court in a copyright infringement case. The interim ruling, issued by Justice Prathiba M. Singh on April 25, came in response to allegations that Rahman’s composition Veera Raja Veera was a direct copy of the classical piece Shiv Stuti, originally performed by the Junior Dagar Brothers.
The court, in its observations, concluded that from a listener’s perspective, Rahman’s song was “not just inspired but is, in fact, identical” to the Shiv Stuti in terms of musical notes, emotional depth, and overall aural effect. It held that this constituted a violation of the rights of the original composers—Late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and Late Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar.
Justice Singh directed that due credit must be given to the Junior Dagar Brothers in the film across all OTT and digital platforms through the insertion of a special slide. Additionally, a sum of ₹2 lakh has been awarded as litigation costs to a family member of the late musicians.
The complaint was filed by Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, son and nephew of the original composers, who argued that he held the copyright to all original works of the Junior Dagar Brothers, including Shiv Stuti. He alleged that the defendants—AR Rahman, Madras Talkies, and Lyca Productions—used the composition without authorization or acknowledgment.
The court emphasized that while the modernized version of the song included new lyrics and elements, its fundamental musical structure remained unchanged and thus infringed upon the original. “The impugned song is not merely based on or inspired by the suit composition but is, in fact, identical… with mere changes in lyrics,” the judge wrote.
Further adding to the complexity of the case, the singers of Veera Raja Veera—defendants six and seven—were discovered to be disciples of the plaintiff, highlighting a deeper musical and personal connection to the original composition.
The court ruled that the complainant had established a strong prima facie case and that failing to grant interim relief could result in irreparable harm to the moral and creative rights of the deceased composers. It also criticized the initial lack of acknowledgment from Rahman, noting that any credit was given only after the plaintiff reached out.
Rahman’s legal team contended that Shiv Stuti belonged to the dhrupad tradition, which is part of the public domain. They argued that since the style and genre are traditional, the specific composition could not be copyrighted.
However, the court did not find this argument sufficient to deny the plaintiff’s claim.
The ₹2 crore will remain in a fixed deposit, pending the final outcome of the trial.
