Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India
Delhi High Court on authors’ moral rights under Section 57 — clean, classroom-style explainer.
amar-nath-sehgal-v-union-of-india
Quick Summary
This case protects an artist’s moral rights even when someone else owns the economic copyright. The Delhi High Court held that removing and mishandling Amar Nath Sehgal’s large mural at Vigyan Bhawan damaged his honor and reputation. The Court ordered the Government to return the mural, recognized his right to recreate it, and granted compensation.
Issues
- Does the author enjoy special moral rights under Section 57 even after copyright ownership rests with another?
- Are damages available for distortion, mutilation, modification, or similar acts done during the copyright term?
Rules
- Section 57, Copyright Act: The author has rights of attribution and integrity. The author can stop misuse and claim damages for harm to the work or reputation.
- Article 6bis, Berne Convention: Member countries must legally protect moral rights of attribution and integrity where copyright exists.
Facts (Timeline)
Commission: Government commissioned renowned sculptor Amar Nath Sehgal to create a bronze mural for Vigyan Bhawan.
Installation (1962): The mural, built over several years, was displayed in the lobby.
Removal (1979): The Government removed the mural to a storeroom without the artist’s consent.
Damage: During removal and storage, the mural suffered serious harm due to negligence and mishandling.
Lawsuit: Sehgal sued, claiming violation of his moral rights.
Arguments
Appellant/ Plaintiff (Sehgal)
- Mural is a creative work tied to his identity and reputation.
- Unauthorized removal and poor handling mutilated the work.
- Under Section 57, he can object and seek damages for reputational harm.
Respondent (Union of India)
- Government owned the mural as property/copyright interest.
- Removal was administrative; no intent to harm the author.
- Moral rights should not block management of government premises.
Judgment (Delhi High Court)
- Mishandling caused extreme damage; this was a mutilation of the artwork.
- Moral rights protect the “soul” of the work and remain with the author despite ownership changes.
- Destruction/mutilation infringed Sehgal’s integrity right and affected his reputation.
- Mandatory injunction: Government must return the mural to Sehgal.
- Declaration: Rights over the mural transferred back; Sehgal gets an absolute right to recreate and sell it.
- Compensation: ₹5,00,000 for loss of honor, reputation, and mental injury.
Citation: 2005 (30) PTC 253 Del.
Ratio (Core Principle)
The author’s moral rights of attribution and integrity are independent of economic ownership. Any distortion or destruction that harms the author’s honor or reputation violates Section 57 and invites remedies, including injunction and damages.
Why It Matters
- Sets a high standard for protecting artists’ integrity rights in India.
- Guides public institutions on respectful handling of public art.
- Aligns Indian law with Berne Convention’s moral rights framework.
Key Takeaways
- Moral rights survive transfer of copyright.
- Physical damage that harms reputation triggers Section 57 relief.
- Courts can order return, restoration, recreation rights, and damages.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “ART = Author’s Reputation is Topmost.”
- Attribution stays with the author.
- Repair harm: injunction + damages.
- Transfer of copyright doesn’t kill moral rights.
IRAC Outline
| Issue | Do moral rights under Section 57 continue despite transfer of copyright, and can the author claim damages for mutilation? |
|---|---|
| Rule | Section 57 (attribution & integrity); Article 6bis, Berne Convention. |
| Application | Government’s unauthorized removal and negligent storage mutilated the mural and harmed the artist’s reputation. |
| Conclusion | Moral rights prevail. Court ordered return, recreation rights, and ₹5,00,000 compensation. |
Glossary
- Moral Rights
- Personal rights of the author to be credited and to object to harmful changes.
- Integrity Right
- Right to stop distortion or mutilation that harms reputation.
- Attribution Right
- Right to be named as the author of the work.
- Mandatory Injunction
- Court order requiring a party to take a specific action.
FAQs
What are moral rights under Section 57?
Moral rights protect the author’s identity with the work—credit (attribution) and protection from harmful changes (integrity).
Did the court allow damages for mutilation?
Yes. The Court granted compensation for damage to honor, reputation, and mental injury caused by negligent handling.
Do moral rights survive transfer of copyright?
Yes. Moral rights remain with the author and can be enforced independently of economic ownership.
What relief did Sehgal receive?
Return of the mural, transfer of rights over it, full right to recreate and sell, plus ₹5,00,000 compensation.
Which court decided the case?
Delhi High Court, reported as 2005 (30) PTC 253 Del.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now