In the year 1957, the Government of India commissioned a certain
Mr. Sehgal to create a bronze mural for the Vigyan Bhavan, the most
prominent International Convention Hall in Delhi. The bronze
sculpture in question was about 140 ft. span and 40 ft. sweep and
had taken five years to complete. On completion, it was placed on
the wall of the Lobby in the Convention hall. This embellishment on
a national architecture became a part of the Indian art
However, in 1979, the mural was pulled down and consigned to the
storeroom of the Union without notice or permission or
authorization of Mr. Sehgal. When Mr. Sehgal came to know of this
ill treatment, he made representations to the government
authorities for restoration of the mural, to no avail.
However, the question here is whether Mr. Sehgal has any right
on the sculpture once it has been handed to the person who had
This case of Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India brought
to the forefront the debate over the moral rights of authors and
WHAT ARE MORAL RIGHTS?
Moral rights finds expression in Section 57 of the Copyright
Act, 1957 which is in accordance with Article 6bis of the Berne
Convention. They are the author's or creator's special
right which includes the right to paternity and the right to
The right to paternity is the right of the author to claim
authorship over his work and have it attributed to him. On the
other hand, the right to integrity permits the author to restrain
or claim damages in the event of any distortion, mutilation,
modification or any other untoward act done to his work. However,
it is essential that such act in question should prejudice the
honor and reputation of the creator or author and such act should
be done before the expiry of the term of copyright in the work.
Though initially intended to protect only literary works, the
concept of moral rights was later extended to artistic, musical,
dramatic and cinematograph films as well.
WHAT DID THE COURT DECIDE?
Amarnath Sehgal filed a petition under Section 57 of the
Indian Copyright Act before the Delhi High Court seeking for
enforcement of his moral rights. He sought for an apology from the
defendants, a permanent injunction on the defendants to restrain
them from distorting, mutilating or damaging the plaintiff's
mural and damages to the tune of INR50 Lacs. He was also granted
The main takeaway from this case is that despite the transfer or
sale of a copyrighted work from the creator to another person, all
the rights of the creator do not get extinguished. The creator
still retains his/her moral rights that can be enforced when the
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
The territorial jurisdiction to institute a trade mark infringement or copyright infringement case is turning into a battleground with contrary views being taken by the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court.
At least the Delhi High Court thinks so. In a recent judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford & Others Vs. Rameshwari Photocopy Services & Another, . . .
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).