By Shilpi Saurav Sharan and Nitika Sinha
A.R. Rahman, one of India’s most celebrated music composers, recently found himself entangled in a legal dispute over the acclaimed song “Veera Raja Veera” from Mani Ratnam’s Tamil language film Ponniyin Selvan 2. At the heart of the controversy lies a serious allegation of copyright infringement involving a revered classical composition. The case raises pertinent questions about the boundaries of creative freedom, the sanctity of traditional art forms, and intellectual property in the age of adaptation. This case has once again stirred a long-standing debate: where is the line between cultural inspiration and copyright infringement?
The lawsuit was initiated by Ustad Faiyaz Wasifuddin Dagar, a noted exponent of the Dhrupad genre and a recipient of the Padma Shri. He alleged that “Veera Raja Veera” closely mirrors a traditional composition known as “Shiva Stuti,” originally performed by his late father and uncle, Ustad Nasir Faiyazuddin Dagar and Ustad Nasir Zahiruddin Dagar.
While the lyrics in Rahman’s track differ from the original, Dagar’s primary contention was that the musical structure—including rhythm, melodic phrasing, and tonal arrangement—was strikingly similar. He argued that the soul of the Dhrupad piece had been lifted without consent or acknowledgment, undermining the artistic labor and legacy of the Dagars.
The Defense: Public Domain or Creative Rework?
In response, AR Rahman and the film’s production house, Madras Talkies, maintained that “Veera Raja Veera” was not a direct reproduction but rather a creative reinterpretation. They claimed that “Shiva Stuti” belongs to the traditional canon and is part of the public domain, allowing for artistic liberty.
Rahman’s side emphasized that his composition incorporated modern musical techniques, digital layering, and orchestration far removed from the structure of the original Dhrupad piece. They also noted that the credits in the film acknowledged the broader “Dagarvani tradition” as a gesture of respect.
Judicial Intervention: A Verdict on Musical Ownership
The Delhi High Court took a firm stance. Justice Prathiba M. Singh[2] ruled that “Veera Raja Veera” bore an undeniable resemblance to the Dhrupad composition and was not a sufficiently transformative piece to be considered original in its own right. The court noted that simply altering lyrics or modernizing the orchestration does not exempt a work from copyright scrutiny when the core musical identity remains intact.
The court further underscored that even traditional compositions can possess distinct authorship if they are the result of individual creative effort. In this case, the Dagars’ rendition of “Shiva Stuti” was deemed to be original and thus protected under copyright law.
The directives issues by the Court: –
- AR Rahman and Madras Talkies were instructed to revise all public credits to specifically name the original composers—Ustad Nasir Faiyazuddin Dagar and Ustad Nasir Zahiruddin Dagar—rather than the generic reference to the Dagarvani tradition.
- They were also ordered to deposit ₹2 crore with the court registry as a provisional amount, pending the final resolution of the case.
- Additionally, ₹2 lakh was to be paid to the petitioner to cover legal costs.
A division bench of the High Court recently granted a temporary stay on the ₹2 crore deposit order, providing a measure of relief to Rahman and the production team. However, this does not negate the core findings of the lower court. The legal proceedings are ongoing, and the final outcome could set important precedents for how traditional music is handled in commercial projects.
Similar Disputes in the Past
This is far from the first time that prominent artists have faced backlash for repurposing traditional or lesser-known works without appropriate credit. Some examples in India and across the globe are mentioned below:-
- M.I.A. – “Kala” Album (2007)
Allegation: British-Sri Lankan rapper M.I.A. was accused of sampling traditional Indian folk beats without clearance in some of her tracks like “BirdFlu” and “Jimmy.”
Outcome: She later acknowledged some of the inspirations, but questions around royalties and credits persisted. - Led Zeppelin – “Stairway to Heaven” [3]
Bakground:
The opening riff was alleged to resemble Spirit’s instrumental “Taurus,” sparking a legal dispute over originality.
Outcome:
After years of litigation, courts ruled in favor of Led Zeppelin, citing lack of substantial similarity, but the trial opened up broader questions on how musical borrowing is judged legally.
Ilaiyaraaja and SP Balasubrahmanyam[5]
Background:
Veteran composer Ilaiyaraaja sent legal notices to playback singer SPB for performing his songs in concerts without his permission.
Outcome:
This ignited a massive debate in the Tamil music industry about the rights of composers vs. performers when it comes to live renditions of copyrighted songs.
Tradition vs. Transformation
This case goes beyond a single song or composer. It touches on a larger debate in the creative world: How should contemporary artists engage with classical or traditional works? While the public domain allows for cultural continuity, it doesn’t permit erasure or uncredited use of identifiable original contributions.
Ultimately, recognizing the origins of a composition—especially when it comes from a centuries-old lineage like the Dagars’—doesn’t diminish the work of a modern artist. It enhances it, building a bridge between generations rather than overwriting the past.
The ruling reaffirms that classical music, though ancient in form, can still belong to individual creators when presented with distinctive interpretation. Acknowledging that authorship ensures respect for legacy while allowing space for innovation, something both the courts and society must continue to balance.
Feba Sara Vinu, Former Junior Associate at S.S.Rana & Co. has assisted in the research of this article.
[2] CS(COMM) 773/2023
[4] https://soundcloud.com/cxrana/led-zeppelin-stairway-to-heaven?in=jonah-lopez-4/sets/led-zeppelin
