What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The Supreme Court reportedly declined to entertain composer Ilaiyaraaja’s challenge to a Delhi High Court ruling over “En Iniya Pon Nilave,” from the Tamil film Moodu Pani. The High Court recognized his copyright in the song’s musical composition, but not in its lyrics or the existing sound recording. Those are separate rights, and a licence from the composer alone did not clear them all for the proposed use in Aghathiyaa.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
News reports published on 1 October 2026 said a Supreme Court bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran declined to entertain Ilaiyaraaja’s challenge. The underlying Delhi High Court ruling had upheld an injunction against the proposed use of the song. The Supreme Court order itself was not available in the cited reports, so its exact wording and any further reasoning cannot be confirmed. Bar and Bench reported the disposition; Hindustan Times also reported it.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Ilaiyaraaja's Music Journey | $17.89 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
100 Singalong Songs For Kids | $13.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Ilectro | $11.58 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Paa (New Hindi Music CD) by Ilaiyaraaja (2009-07-28) | $22.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Wings | $32.68 | Buy on Amazon |
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The Delhi High Court division bench ruled on 21 May 2026, and the court dismissed Ilaiyaraaja’s review petition on 26 May. The Supreme Court challenge followed those decisions. The division-bench judgment and the review judgment set out the High Court’s reasoning and procedural history.
Why “song copyright” involves more than one right
In this dispute, the courts treated the song as involving three distinct copyright layers. A claim or licence covering one does not automatically cover the others.
#1 Best Overall
| Layer | What the court said in this dispute | Why it mattered to the proposed use |
|---|---|---|
| Musical work | Ilaiyaraaja, as composer, was the author of the musical work: the musical component, excluding lyrics. | His rights included adapting that musical work, but did not by themselves authorize use of the lyrics or the existing recording. |
| Lyrics | The lyrics were treated as a separate work belonging to the lyricist. | A composer’s licence alone did not establish permission to use the lyrics. |
| Sound recording | The court held that rights in the existing recording vested in the film producer and had been assigned onward to Saregama. | Using the original recording raised a separate rights question from adapting the composition. The judgment records an assignment from RCA to Saregama under an agreement dated 25 February 1980. |
The division bench put the distinction this way: “As the composer of the disputed song, therefore, Ilaiyaraaja was the author of the ‘musical work’ forming part thereof, i.e., the musical component of the disputed song.” It added: “That right could not, however, extend to doing anything involving the sound recording of the disputed song, or the lyrics thereof.” These are statements by the Delhi High Court division bench in Mr Ilaiyaraaja v. Saregama India Limited, decided on 21 May 2026.
The judgment discussed sections 2(d), 2(f), 2(p), 13(4), 14(a) and 17 of India’s Copyright Act, 1957. Its conclusions concern the rights and record before that court; they should not be read as deciding how every film-song contract or composer’s rights work.
Rank #2
- 084418053520
How the dispute arose
Vels Film International (VFIL) proposed using a recreated version of “En Iniya Pon Nilave” in Aghathiyaa and said it had obtained rights from Ilaiyaraaja. Saregama objected, asserting rights through an assignment from the original producer. The Delhi High Court division bench affirmed the injunction against the proposed use. Hindustan Times’ account of the dispute describes the parties’ positions and the assignment claim.
Recommended Free Tools
A recreated recording is not the same thing as the original sound recording, but making a new recording does not, on its own, resolve rights in the underlying composition or lyrics. The High Court’s central point was that Ilaiyaraaja’s right to adapt the musical work did not extend to the separate lyrics or the existing recording. The relevant permissions therefore depend on which protected work a proposed use involves and what the applicable licences cover.
Rank #3
What the ruling does—and does not—establish
- It establishes for this dispute: the Delhi High Court recognized Ilaiyaraaja’s authorship and copyright in the musical work, while treating lyrics and the existing sound recording as separate rights.
- It explains the injunction: a licence from the composer alone did not clear all rights implicated by VFIL’s proposed use, as the High Court assessed it.
- It does not supply a verified Supreme Court explanation: the available reporting describes the Court as declining to entertain the challenge or refusing to interfere, but the Supreme Court order text was not available.
- It is not a ruling on every song: rights can depend on the works involved, statutory rules and the relevant agreements. The High Court’s conclusion here should not be generalized beyond its case record.
A separate Delhi High Court judgment dated 1 July 2026 in another Saregama dispute applied a similar distinction between Ilaiyaraaja’s rights in musical composition and rights in lyrics or sound recordings. It is a separate matter, not another step in the En Iniya Pon Nilave appeal. The 1 July judgment is available separately.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
