The Delhi High Court recently delivered a significant judgment that brings fresh clarity to the copyright protection of classical music compositions in India. The case involved Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, an acclaimed Dhrupad vocalist from the famous Dagar family, and A.R. Rahman, the internationally renowned music composer.
Ustad Dagar alleged that Rahman’s song “Veera Raja Veera” from the film Ponniyin Selvan-2 (PS-2) had unlawfully used the traditional Dhrupad composition “Shiva Stuti”, originally created by the Junior Dagar Brothers in the 1970s. Despite attempts at an amicable settlement, the dispute escalated into a legal battle over copyright ownership, moral rights, and financial damages.
This case highlights the pressing question: Can traditional classical music be copyrighted? It offers crucial lessons for musicians, composers, and producers about when using traditional compositions might cross into copyright infringement. The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar v. A.R. Rahman & Ors (2025) outlines key copyright rules that artists must understand when drawing inspiration from India’s vast musical heritage.
Ultimately, the Court ruled in favour of Ustad Dagar, awarding ₹2 crore in damages and recognising the copyright and moral rights in the “Shiva Stuti” composition. The verdict emphasises that even compositions rooted in ancient traditions can enjoy legal protection if they involve original creativity.
Background: From Tradition to Courtroom
Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, son of Late Ustad N. Faiyazuddin Dagar and nephew of Late Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar, represents a musical lineage that has preserved the Dhrupad tradition over 20 generations. In the 1970s, the Junior Dagar Brothers composed “Shiva Stuti”, a vibrant piece dedicated to Lord Shiva, set in Raga Adana and Sultaal.
Though based on classical raga rules, this composition has a distinct arrangement and rhythm, forming an original musical work. It was performed internationally, notably at the Royal Tropical Institute in Amsterdam in 1978, and later released by PAN Records.
The trouble began when A.R. Rahman’s composition “Veera Raja Veera” appeared in PS-2 in 2023. Ustad Dagar claimed that the song had replicated the melodic structure, rhythm, and beat cycle of “Shiva Stuti” without permission or proper attribution.
Despite reaching out to Rahman and the producers, no settlement materialised. Legal action followed.
Key Legal Issues Raised
The case presented several important copyright questions, especially in the context of classical and traditional music:
- Can a composition based on a traditional raga have copyright protection?
- Does the use of similar musical elements without permission amount to infringement?
- Do moral rights of attribution apply to traditional compositions?
The defendants — including Rahman, production houses Madras Talkies and Lyca Productions, Tips Industries (music rights holder), and the singers — denied infringement. They argued that classical music structures like Raga Adana are public domain and cannot be copyrighted. They also asserted that “Veera Raja Veera” was an independent, original creation.
Court’s Analysis: Tradition v. Originality
Justice Prathiba M. Singh carefully analysed the issues, emphasising the delicate balance between protecting creativity and avoiding undue monopolisation of traditional art forms.
1. Originality Exists Even Within Tradition
The Court clarified that:
- Ragas and taals, by themselves, are not copyrightable.
- However, the specific arrangement of notes, rhythm, and musical phrases by a composer can be copyrighted if it displays originality.
- The Junior Dagar Brothers’ “Shiva Stuti” was recognised as an original musical work, even though it used public domain elements like Raga Adana
Thus, originality lay not in the raga but in the unique creative expression embodied in the composition’s sequence, beat structure, and rendition style.
2. Infringement: Substantial Similarity, Not Exact Copy
The Court compared the musical notations, beat cycles, and audio samples of both works. It found substantial similarities, including:
- Identical taal patterns (Sultaal)
- Similar note progressions and melodic phrasing
- Structural overlaps in musical arrangement
The Court held that infringement does not require an exact copy; substantial similarity suffices, especially when critical musical elements are replicated
3. Violation of Moral Rights
The Court strongly emphasised moral rights — the right of an artist to be credited for their work.
Although the streaming platforms eventually mentioned “inspired by Dagarvani tradition,” the absence of attribution to the Junior Dagar Brothers was found to be a serious breach
Court’s Verdict and Directions
After detailed hearings, the Delhi High Court issued a landmark order:
- ₹2 crore in damages were awarded to Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar
- .Defendants must give full credit to the Junior Dagar Brothers in all forms of the song’s display — digital, OTT, television, and cinema
- .The producers and rights holders must correct credits across platforms, ensuring future performances honour the original creators.
- The Court, however, refrained from ordering the deletion of the song or the movie from platforms, recognising the practical difficulty due to their wide release.
Lessons for Musicians and Creators
This judgment provides critical insights for musicians, composers, and producers:
1. Classical Roots Are Not a Free Pass
Even compositions based on ancient ragas can enjoy copyright protection if a unique expression is involved.
Takeaway: Always verify if the version you are using has an identifiable creator.
2. Moral Rights Are Enforceable
Attribution to original creators is not optional — failure to do so can attract legal liability.
Takeaway: Always credit original sources when drawing inspiration from classical works.
3. Due Diligence Is Critical
Major productions must exercise due diligence when adapting or referencing traditional music.
Takeaway: Engage with musicologists, check copyright ownerships, and seek proper licenses wherever required.
Broader Implications: A Historic Step for Indian Classical Music
The Delhi High Court’s judgment is historic. It brings classical musicians, who often worked in oral traditions, squarely within the protection of modern copyright law.
The Court recognised that even within rigid raga structures, personal creativity matters. This reaffirms that Indian classical musicians are not just custodians of tradition but also original artists whose contributions deserve legal protection.
Moreover, it sends a strong message to the entertainment industry that traditional music must be handled with care, respect, and legal compliance.
Conclusion
The copyright case between Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar and A.R. Rahman offers an important answer to a long-standing question:
Yes, you can face legal action for using classical music if you copy an original traditional composition without authorisation.
Musicians must be cautious — tradition does not excuse infringement. Whether you are inspired by Dhrupad, Carnatic, Bhajan, or folk traditions, understanding copyright rules is now more essential than ever.
The Delhi High Court’s ₹2 crore verdict is not just a victory for Ustad Dagar — it is a landmark moment for protecting the creative spirit embedded within India’s musical legacy.
