Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India & Anr.

Relevant Acts and provisions

Copyright Act, 1957

Section 57

Provisions considered: Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, on an author's special moral rights of integrity and attribution.

Brief facts

In 1957 the Government of India commissioned the sculptor Amar Nath Sehgal to create a large bronze mural for a public building in New Delhi, which he completed after several years of work and which became a well-regarded part of India's public art. In 1979, during renovation, the mural was removed from the wall without notice to the sculptor, dismantled and left in government storage in a damaged and incomplete condition. His repeated requests for its restoration or return went unanswered, and he sued seeking a permanent injunction, damages and restoration of the mural, invoking his moral rights under Section 57.

Issues before the Court

1. Does an author's special right under Section 57 survive after the copyright in the work has been assigned to or vests in another party?
2. Does the removal, damage and indefinite storage of a mural amount to distortion, mutilation or other modification injurious to the author's honour or reputation?

Court's findings

The Court held that the special rights conferred on an author by Section 57 are independent of the economic rights in copyright and survive even after the author has assigned copyright in the work, since moral rights protect the author's personality and reputation rather than merely his economic interest.

The Court held that the mural, being a unique work of art of cultural importance, could not be treated as ordinary government property to be dismantled and warehoused at will; its removal and prolonged, damaging storage without regard to the artist's wishes amounted to mutilation and destruction of the work prejudicial to the author's honour and reputation within the meaning of Section 57.

The Court reasoned that the destruction of a work of art can itself be a form of extreme mutilation, since it forecloses any possibility of the work's continued existence and appreciation, and found that the artist's moral rights had been infringed notwithstanding that the mural had been created for and paid for by the Government.

Decision

Suit decreed; the mural was ordered to be returned to the artist, his moral rights under Section 57 were upheld, and damages were awarded.

Keywords

Artistic Work Assignment And Licensing Cultural Heritage Integrity Right Moral Rights