The Delhi High Court has directed the famous musician AR Rahman and the manufacturers of ‘Ponyin Selvan 2’ to deposit Rs 2 crore with the court, which includes a junior dispute of Shiv Stuity after a copyright dispute.

In an interim order issued on 25 April, Justice Prasathiba M Singh found that from the point of view of a listener, the essence of Rahman’s song ‘Veera Raja Veera’ was not just inspired, but, in fact, equally, “Shiva Stuti Ko Note, Bhavna and Daryed is similar in the same.

The judge said that it violated the rights of the original musicians of devotional pieces dedicated to Lord Shiva.

The court also ordered that a slide junior dagger brothers – the late Ustad N Fayazuddin Dagar and the late Ustad Jahiruddin Dagar credited the slide – should be put in the film on all OTT and online platforms. Additionally, it gave Rs 2 lakh as cost to the family member of the late artists.

Ustad Fayaz Vasifuddin Dagar, son of Fayazuddin Dagar and nephew of Zaheeruddin Dagar, argued in the trial that he kept copyright for all the original works of Junior Dar brothers including Shiva Stuti, and that the defendants had illegally violated it.

“In the final analysis, therefore, this court believes that the song composed is not only inspired or motivated by the suit composition Shiva Stuti, but in fact, the song is just like a suit composition with a change in the song. The song used by adding other elements can be presented more like a modern composition, but basically works as music.”

The court also said, “Therefore, the composition of the defendant violates the rights of the plaintiff in Shiv Stuti.”

The court clarified that Rahman, Madras Talkies, and Laika Productions would have to deposit Rs 2 crore, which will be kept in a certain deposit pending the final result of the case.

It further stated that the plaintiff had a prima facie case for copyright violations and if an interim order was not given, “irreplaceable injury would be due to the creative rights and moral rights of the original musicians who are no longer alive”.

The court said, “The defendant number 1 (Rahman) who has earned a global appreciation did not initially give any recognition to the work of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff contacted the defendant number 1, the acknowledgment was reluctant,” the court said.

The court said, “defendants numbers 6 and 7 who have sung impused are disciples of the plaintiff.

The court concluded that the balance of convenience is with the plaintiff, saying that any late delay can cause loss of effective recognition until the conclusion of the test.

Rahman’s lawyer argued that Shiva Stuti was based on the traditional Dhrupad style, which is part of the public domain, and that neither the style of singing nor the composition was sufficient to qualify for copyright security.