Copyrighting Rituals: A Misplaced Endeavour at the Jagannath Temple

Introduction

Can sacred rituals, passed down through generations and collectively inherited, be ‘owned’?

This is a profound question that arises from the recent announcement by the titular king of Puri to copyright the rituals of the 12th-century Jagannath Temple. This proposal was triggered by two incidents: Firstly, the ISKCON, organising the Rath Yatra and Snan Yatra on dates different from the Puri tradition, and secondly, the naming of a temple in West Bengal, as “Jagannath Dham”. While aimed at protecting the traditional practices from misrepresentation, the move is directly at odds with the very structure of the copyright law.

Why Copyright is a Square Peg in a Round Hole?

The Copyright Act, 1957, grants copyright protection with respect to three kinds of work: firstly, a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work. Secondly, a cinematograph film and lastly, a sound recording. Moreover, it vests ‘exclusive’ economic rights under section 14, such as the right to reproduce, perform, or communicate these works in any ‘material form.’

However, the four essential elements of the Copyright Act make it nearly impossible to extend the protection to Jagannath's rituals. These are: authorship, originality, fixation in material form, and duration.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

a)    Authorship

Firstly, the Copyright Act, 1957, mandates an identifiable or a known author to be the owner of the work. The Act recognises two kinds of authorship: Joint authorship and individual authorship. The work of Joint authorship is defined under section 2(z) of the Act, while “author” is defined under Section 2(d) depending upon the kind of work in question. Defining “author” plays a crucial role, as the first owner is the “author” of the work under section 17. Therefore, all the rights under Section 14 vest only in the author or the joint author of the eligible work.

However, when it comes to traditional practices such as rituals, there exists no single author to claim ownership, for the rituals are passed down through generations, vesting the ownership in the community as a whole. Even if it is argued that the copyright might lie in the temple administration, the argument remains untenable in law since the administration is not the creator, but a mere facilitator of the rituals.

b)    Originality

Section 13 of the Act mentions “original” before the eligible categories of works, indicating that originality is requisite for copyright protection. The Indian Court, in the case of Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak, adopted the “modicum of creativity test”, which emphasises creativity over mere labour. However, Jagannath temple rituals are not original creations, but cultural expressions available in the public domain for centuries, and hence cannot meet this standard.

c)     Fixation in material Form

Copyright protects a work fixed in material form, such as a recording or writing.  Rituals, however, are oral, performative and living. Even if the definite manner of performing the rituals is documented in a tangible form, the copyright would protect the representation, in the form of script, video or choreography notes, but not the practice itself. In other words, the law would prevent someone from copying the documentary, but it would not stop another group from performing the ritual based on their own knowledge

d)    Duration

Finally, under section 22 of the Act, Copyright protection is granted for the lifetime of the author plus sixty years. The traditional practices are timeless, sacred and deserve perpetual protection. However, on the expiry of the fixed duration, the copyright law places these cultural practices in the public domain, contrary to their eternal nature.

Moral Rights under the Copyright Act, 1957

Section 57 of the Copyright Act provides for moral rights, which are a set of non-economic rights to safeguard an author’s personal interest and the integrity of their work. These consist of the right of attribution, which mandates giving credit to the author, and the right of integrity, which empowers the author to restrain or claim damages in respect of any distortion, mutilation of their work. Unlike economic rights, moral rights continue to subsist, even if the copyright is assigned. However, much like economic rights, they presuppose the existence of an identifiable author, rendering them ill-suited to take into account the communal authorship and spiritual aspects of the Jagannath temple’s rituals.

Global Precedents

The Jagannath Temple’s quest is a local instance of a global paradox. The very features that define traditional culture, such as communal authorship, oral transmission, and timelessness, are the very things that copyright law excludes from the purview of its protection.

a)    United States

In the case of Bikram’s Yoga College v. Evolation Yoga, the Hon’ble Court held that “Sequence” is a collection of facts and idea process, or system. Copyright law, the court affirmed, protects only the expression of the idea, i.e., the words and pictures used to describe the sequence and not the idea of the sequence itself. Consequently, the “performance” of the sequence was deemed categorically ineligible for copyright protection, even under the categories of compilation or choreography.

Applying to the Jagannath temple case, the temple rituals are a “system or process” designed to achieve a spiritual goal. Therefore, while a work documenting the rituals may be copyrighted, the rituals themselves, as performed, remain an unprotectable idea.

b)    Australia

The Australian case of Bulun Bulun v R & T Textiles reinforces that copyright is not the right tool to protect cultural practices. Here, in a copyright infringement dispute, the Court upheld the artist’s copyright, but rejected the ownership claim of the community in the underlying ritual knowledge of the artwork. The Court identified two key limitations of the law. First, the prerequisite of fixation in material form, which makes living, oral traditions ineligible for protection and second, the limited duration of protection, which conflicts with the perpetual cultural rights. Moreover, the Court noted that even moral rights, which protect attribution and integrity, belong to individuals, not the communities.

c)     New Zealand

The New Zealand experience offers another significant precedent for India. Here, the Ka Mate haka, a traditional Māori cultural expression, was considered not merely a performance, but a treasured cultural property, and a cultural expression of survival and identity for the Ngāti Toa tribe. However, the recurrent use of this cultural expression in a commercial and derogatory manner caused discontent among Ngāti Toa. Therefore, a sui generis legislation, namely, the Haka Ka Mate Attribution Act, 2014, was enacted, which is based on the concept of moral rights. It does not grant ownership but instead mandates that any performance of ka mate be attributed to its 19th-century composer, “Te Rauparaha”, and the “Ngāti Toa tribe” as its guardians.

However, this sui generis legislation is of limited assistance due to the fundamental difference of identifiable authorship. Ka Mate is a rare case of cultural practice where an identifiable author (Te Rauparaha) could be located. The cultural rituals of the Jagannath temple, by contrast, are authorless, their origins lost to time. This raises a crucial question as to who is the author: the Sevayat Families, the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration (SJTA) or the Gajapati Maharaja of Puri?

Alternative Legal Pathways for Protection

As seen in the previous sections, copyright remains an inadequate mechanism for safeguarding the sacred rituals and cultural practices, which are owned collectively and transmitted orally through generations. Considering this limitation, this section will explore the alternative mechanisms that align more closely with the nature of such practices and their communal character.

a)    Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL)

The TKDL, a joint initiative of the CSIR and the Department of Ayush, was developed to prevent the misappropriation of India’s traditional medicine and yogic knowledge through wrongful patents. By granting access to major international patent offices such as the European Patent Office, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, etc., it ensures that patent examiners directly use TKDL in prior-art searches. Crucially, it safeguards knowledge without asserting or claiming ownership rights over knowledge, instead protecting it from misappropriation. A similar approach, focusing on recording and authentication, could be adopted for safeguarding religious and cultural practices. Such an approach would not only deter distortions and misrepresentations but also affirm the community’s custodianship, without invoking the misfitted framework of ownership inherent in copyright.

b)    Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH)

The more coherent approach is not through intellectual property law but through cultural heritage protection. UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity, established by the 2003 Convention, is expressly designed to safeguard practices rooted in community life, such as rituals, festivals, and traditional performances. Crucially, unlike copyright, its objective is preservation and stewardship rather than proprietary control. The SJTA’s reported move to nominate the Rath Yatra for inscription is therefore both pragmatic and forward-looking.  Such recognition affirms the ritual’s cultural worth while avoiding the legal pitfalls of copyright. While it cannot completely prevent global misuse, ICH inscription grants the practice moral authority and an international platform, enabling communities to challenge distortion or derogatory exploitation more effectively than an unenforceable copyright claim.

Way Forward

If a ritual belongs to everyone in a community, can one person or group really “own” it? The answer in both law and spirit is no. True protection for Jagannath Puri’s traditions lies not in locking tradition under a legal regime of ownership but in empowering the custodians to preserve them through appropriate mechanisms. Frameworks such as the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library and Intangible Cultural Heritage list offer a way to preserve, protect and honour tradition without imprisoning it.

Author: Priya Sharma, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.