The Supreme Court on Thursday refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court ruling in the copyright dispute between music composer Ilaiyaraaja and music label Saregama over the popular Tamil song “En Iniya Pon Nilave” from the 1981 film Moodu Pani. A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran declined to entertain Ilaiyaraaja’s challenge to the High Court’s decision, which held that he did not own the copyright in the song’s lyrics or its sound recording. The Supreme Court’s decision leaves the High Court’s findings in place at the present stage of the litigation. The dispute arose after a recreated version of the song was used in the film Aghathiyaa on the basis of a licence obtained from Ilaiyaraaja. Saregama objected to the use, claiming that it owned the relevant rights in the original sound recording.

The Supreme Court’s order followed the Delhi High Court’s May 2026 judgment, which drew a distinction between three separate copyright interests associated with a song — the musical composition, the lyrics and the sound recording. The High Court recognised Ilaiyaraaja as the composer and held that he continued to retain copyright in the musical component of “En Iniya Pon Nilave”. However, it held that the copyright in the sound recording contained in Moodu Pani had vested with the film’s producer and was subsequently assigned to Saregama, then known as Saregama India Limited. The court also held that Ilaiyaraaja did not hold copyright in the lyrics and therefore could not assign those rights to another party.

The dispute began when Vels Film International used a recreated version of “En Iniya Pon Nilave” in Aghathiyaa, relying on an agreement with Ilaiyaraaja. Saregama challenged the use, arguing that the composer could not grant rights that he did not possess. The Delhi High Court agreed in relation to the lyrics and sound recording and upheld an injunction against the use of the recreated version in the manner proposed. The court said the original producer of Moodu Pani had obtained the relevant rights under the Copyright Act and had subsequently assigned them to Saregama. As a result, Ilaiyaraaja could not license the sound recording or the lyrical component of the song to Vels Film International.

Also Read: 5-Day Work Week For Banks? What The Viral Notification Actually Means

The High Court, however, did not rule that Ilaiyaraaja had no copyright interest whatsoever in the song. It specifically recognised his continuing copyright in the underlying musical work because he was its composer. The court said this right was distinct from the copyright in the sound recording and lyrics. Under its interpretation of the Copyright Act, Ilaiyaraaja retained rights relating to the musical composition, including certain rights to adapt the musical work, but those rights did not extend to the original sound recording incorporated into the film. The distinction between the composition and the recorded version was therefore central to the case.

Ilaiyaraaja had subsequently sought a review of the Delhi High Court judgment, but the High Court rejected that plea in May. It reiterated that the composer could not have licensed the copyright in the sound recording or the lyrics to a third party. The court noted that the definition of a cinematograph film under the Copyright Act includes sound recordings accompanying the visual recording. It also maintained that Saregama’s rights in the sound recording did not eliminate Ilaiyaraaja’s separate copyright in the underlying musical work. The Supreme Court was approached after these proceedings, but the bench on Thursday declined to interfere with the High Court’s ruling.

The case highlights the separate layers of copyright that can exist within a recorded song and the legal consequences of assigning those rights to record labels or other parties. While Ilaiyaraaja remains recognised as the copyright holder of the musical composition of “En Iniya Pon Nilave”, the courts have held that the lyrics and original sound recording associated with Moodu Pani are not rights he could independently license for the recreated version. The Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere therefore leaves the Delhi High Court’s findings in force, subject to the scope of the Supreme Court’s order and any further proceedings in the dispute.

Also Read: Swiss Glaciers Suffer Record Ice Loss As Heat Waves And Sparse Snow Accelerate Melting