Amarnath Sehgal V. Union of India: A Landmark Case on An Artist's Moral Rights
Introduction : “Many of us believe in the soul. Moral rights of the artist are the soul of his work’’ When it comes to the rights of an artist in terms of his creation, various speculations arise. Whether the law only protects its economic and materialistic rights or the concept of dignity, morals, and emotional connection of the artist to his artistic work counts.
In the case of Amarnath Sehgal V. Union of India, this issue arose, and this case became one of the landmark cases that changed the point of view of artists' moral rights in relation to their creation. This case made the moral rights of the artists over their creation eternal and inseparable. This case arose when the bronze mural made by artist Amarnath Sehgal was demolished by the Government of India without his consent. This wasn’t just the demolition of artist Amarnath’s creation, but it also reflects on an artist's dignity and integrity. The Delhi High Court gave a verdict where an artist's moral rights are protected, and the dignity and integrity of the artist should be considered.
Facts
Mr. Amarnath Sehgal is a world-renowned sculptor and has been conferred with several awards for his beautiful creations and contributions to Indian heritage. In the year 1957, the Government of India commissioned Mr. Sehgal to create a bronze mural for Vigyan Bhavan, the most prominent International Convention Hall in Delhi.
The Bronze Mural of about 140ft span and 40ft sweep took five years to complete and was placed on the wall of the lobby in the convention hall. This embellishment on national architecture became a part of Indian Heritage. In the year 1979 when the government pulled down the sculpture from the walls of Vigyan Bhavan and dumped it in the storeroom without notifying or seeking permission from Mr. Amarnath, the mural was slightly damaged in the process.
When Mr. Amarnath Sehgal came to know of this ill treatment, he made representations to the government authorities for the restoration of the mural. Unfortunately, all his pleas fell on deaf ears. Aggrieved by the apathy of the government officials, Mr. Sehgal filed a petition in the Delhi High Court for recognition and enforcement of his rights on the mural.
Issues
Whether the Suit was barred by any limitation?
Whether the plaintiff has a right under section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, while the copyright of the same artwork is vested with the defendant?
Whether the defendant violated the plaintiff’s right under section 57?
Whether the plaintiff suffered any damage?
What will be the relief granted to the favoring party by the court?
Law relevant
The relevant national and international statutes,
The Copyright Act, 1957:
Section 57: This section talks about the author's special rights. Section 57 grants certain special rights to the author of a work, known as moral rights. These rights exist independently of copyright ownership and continue even if the author has assigned or transferred the copyright to another person.
Under this provision, the author has the right to claim the authorship of the work as well as the right to restrain, or claim damages for any distortion, mutilation, modification, or other treatment of the work that may harm their honor or reputation. Even if someone owns the copyright, they cannot alter the work in a manner that negatively affects the author’s reputation. Section 57 protects the personal connection between an author and their work. (Copyright, n.d.)
Berne Convention for the Protection of the Literary and Artistic Work, 1886
Article 6bis: This article was adopted by the Indian government under section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, as it states that the author has the right to claim authorship of the work created by him that is distorted, mutilated, or modified, or has gone through any derogatory action which hurts the author’s honor or reputation, independently of the author's economic rights. These rights shall be maintained even after his death until the expiry of the economic rights. (iPleaders Blog, n.d.)
Analysis of the Court
The Delhi High Court held that the mural, whatever its form today, is too precious to be reduced to scrap and languish in the warehouse of the Government of India. It is only Mr. Sehgal who has the right to recreate his work and therefore has the right to receive the broken-down mural. He also has the right to be compensated for the loss of reputation, honor, and mental injury due to the offending acts of the Union of India.
The Court passed mandatory injunctions against the Union of India, directing it to return the mural to Mr. Sehgal within two weeks from the date of judgment. The Court passed a declaration transferring all the rights over the mural from the Union of India to Mr. Amarnath Sehgal, and an absolute right to recreate the mural and sell the same. The Court also granted a total of Rs. 5 lakhs and the cost of the suit to Mr. Sehgal against the Union of India.
Argument by Plaintiff: Mr. Sehgal argued over the authorship of him over the mural. Even if the mural was owned by the government of India, Mr. Sehgal still possesses the moral rights over the mural, and they are independent of any economic rights owned by the government of India. He said that the government removed the mural, and in the process, the mural got mutilated without informing him or seeking his approval, which violated his moral rights.
The mural was created to decorate the Vigyan Bhavan, the international conference center for the nation, which later became a national treasure, i.e., a part of India’s cultural heritage. Hence, damaging it is a direct insult to the artist’s creation and work, but also to India’s artistic and cultural legacy.
Mr. Sehgal argued on the topic of the limitation period since the mural was removed in 1979, and he filed the suit in the year 1992. He said a moral right of the artist over his creation should be continued till his lifetime.
Argument by Defendant: The government of India argued that it owned the mural and had the copyright rights related to it. Mr. Amarnath Sehgal didn’t have any right to sue them as they own the economic rights of the mural. The government argued that the mural was removed because of the renovation and not by any personal means and grudges, and certainly not with any malice.
As the limitation period prescribed by Indian law, the government argued that the suit was barred by 3 years, as the mural was removed in 1979, and the suit was filed in 1992. (IP Matters, n.d.)
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court, in the case of Amarnath Sehgal V. Union of India, pointed out the moral rights of the artist over his artistic work and creation. This case gave a new framework to the Indian Copyright Act by focusing on an artist's internal relation with his creation and protected the integrity and dignity of the artist towards his artistic work.
The case asserted that while the economic rights of an artist's creation can be transferred, the moral rights of the artist over his artistic creation cannot be separated from his as they are independent according to section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
Author: Manasi Meshram in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to content@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney
Endnotes
Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India, 2005 (30) PTC 253 (Del), Delhi High Court, judgment dated 21 February 2005.
The Copyright Act, 1957, § 57 (India), providing authors with special rights, including the right to claim authorship and to restrain or claim damages for distortion, mutilation, modification or other treatment prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation. Copyright Act, 1957 — India Code
Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Sept. 9, 1886, as amended, art. 6bis, concerning moral rights of authors, including the right to claim authorship and to object to distortion, mutilation or other modification prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation. WIPO — Berne Convention
Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India, 2005 (30) PTC 253 (Del), where the Delhi High Court held that the destruction and mutilation of the plaintiff's mural violated his moral rights under Section 57 and awarded damages of ₹5 lakh, besides granting other reliefs.
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), “Moral Rights,” explaining the distinction between economic rights and moral rights and the protection afforded to an author's personal relationship with his or her work. WIPO — Copyright: Moral Rights
Comments