The Delhi High Court has issued an interim order directing composer A. R. Rahman and the makers of Ponniyin Selvan 2 to deposit Rs 2 crore with the court in connection with a copyright dispute involving the Junior Dagar Brothers' classical rendition of Shiv Stuti. The dispute arises from allegations by the family of the late Ustad N Faiyazuddin Dagar and Ustad Zahiruddin Dagar, who claim that Rahman's song Veera Raja Veera from the movie is identical to their Shiv Stuti, which is a devotional piece dedicated to Lord Shiva.
Justice Prathiba M Singh ruled that the song Veera Raja Veera closely mirrors the Shiv Stuti in terms of its notes, emotions, and aural effects, constituting a violation of the original composers' rights. The court observed that from a listener's perspective, the song is not merely inspired by Shiv Stuti but is in fact identical, with only the lyrics being changed. The judgment emphasized that while Rahman’s composition introduced modern elements, the underlying musical work remains the same.
As part of the ruling, the court ordered that a credit acknowledging the Junior Dagar Brothers be inserted into the film, across all OTT and online platforms. In addition, Rs 2 lakh in costs was awarded to the family member of the late artist. Rahman, along with Madras Talkies and Lyca Productions, is required to deposit the Rs 2 crore into a fixed deposit account pending the final resolution of the case.
The court also noted that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for copyright infringement. It observed that Rahman had initially failed to acknowledge the original work, and that once contacted, he reluctantly gave credit. The court further pointed out that the singers of the song, who were disciples of the plaintiffs, strengthened the link between the two musical compositions.
Rahman’s counsel had argued that Shiv Stuti was based on the traditional dhrupad genre, which is part of the public domain and not eligible for copyright protection due to its commonality. However, the court disagreed, emphasizing that the specific rendition and composition were original works deserving of protection. The case is still ongoing, with the final judgment to be delivered after further hearings.
