Imagine spending years of your creativity, skill, and vision on a giant piece of art for the country, only to have it taken apart, left alone, and forgotten without your permission. This is what happened to Amar Nath Sehgal, one of India’s most famous sculptors. His famous bronze mural used to hang on the walls of Vigyan Bhawan in New Delhi. The government didn’t just destroy the mural; they also insulted the artist’s dignity and the integrity of his work by taking it down and storing it carelessly. Sehgal didn’t stay quiet and took the case to court. This incident turned a personal issue into a landmark legal battle that would change the way moral rights are understood under Indian copyright law.
The Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India case reshaped the understanding of the relationship between an artist and their work. It addressed the concern of asset ownership and compensation but ultimately made one simple point: an artist’s dignity, identity, and creative integrity ought to be honored and protected even after relinquishing ownership and financial privileges to that work. The ruling provided one artist justice while also reinforcing cultural and legal recognition of moral rights in India by connecting the act of creating to respect and responsibility.
The Mural That Was Silenced
Amar Nath Sehgal was not just an artist but a visionary who created a significant alteration to the landscape of India today. As one of the first sculptors to escape from the withdrawal of his work after independence, he made a sculpture that was equally deft and informed by profound human sentiment. Many of his creations, like “The Captive,” a sculptural representation of the human will to be free and symbol of the human spirit, address both timeless and effective expressions of India’s artistic and philosophical ethos. His most recognized and definitive work is a large bronze mural commissioned by the Government of India in the 1950s for Vigyan Bhawan in New Delhi. The mural, several meters long, symbolized India’s intellectual ambitions and cultural identity by marrying traditional elements and codes with those of modern discipline. Decades later, this national treasure suffered a quiet and unfortunate demise. Without the artist’s permission, the government removed the mural and placed it in storage, where it decayed and fell apart over time. What may have seemed like a bureaucratic task was in fact a serious act of disrespect to art and cultural heritage. For Sehgal, loss was as much about losing an object, broken and in multiple pieces, as it was about remaining true to the intactness of his art and self.
What Are Moral Rights? Understanding the Key Legal Issues
The term “moral rights” outlines special protections that copyright legislation offers artists to safeguard their artistic expressions. The Indian Copyright Act puts forward two types of rights under Section 57:
- Paternity: the right to be recognized as the author of the work.
- Integrity: the right to stop any changes, mutilation, or other acts that may harm the artist’s honor or reputation.
The issues raised by Amar Nath Sehgal’s legal case were critical:
- Do an artist’s moral rights survive the sale of the copyright?
- Does damaging or neglecting the artwork violate these rights?
The mural painted by Sehgal held more significance than just legal rights and financial value; by tearing it down and abandoning it, the government not only affronted his artistic pride but also disregarded the mural’s importance to India’s cultural history. Sehgal said the government violated his dignity as an artist, but the government said it could do whatever it wanted with the mural. In the end, the case presented more profound issues than ownership of art; the case then focused on recognizing the legacy and spirit of the artwork itself.
When the Court Spoke for the artist.
The Delhi High Court’s 2005 ruling in Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India is widely considered one of the most pivotal moments for copyright in India. Remarkably, the Court eschewed technocratic formalities. Importantly, the Court affirmed that, although an artwork might physically change hands, its essence remains tied to its artist, firmly upholding and establishing moral rights to protect this essential bond. Therefore, the Court ultimately upheld the notion that the removal, destruction, and neglect of Mr. Sehgal’s mural at Vigyan Bhawan were not hasty omissions of duty but rather infringed his moral rights—specifically, a right to integrity of the embodiments of his mind in virtue of his copyright under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Court prescribed moral right as an inherent right offered to protect artistic integrity; its existence does not rely on adherence to a procedural series and effectively protects the honor and reputation of an artist and any emotional link to the creations made even after economic rights have been sold, licensed, or assigned. What stands out to me, and what is extremely refreshing about this judgment, is its vision. It goes without saying that art ought not to be commodified nor treated as state property without significance. Rather, art should express culture, identity, and national memory; and in this context, the bench was clear that state institutions have a duty to respect the values embodied in art.
The Impact of Sehgal’s Case
A Worldwide Concern Sehgal’s victory not only settled a personal dispute; it radically transformed the framework of the Indian copyright landscape. For the first time, artists were recognized not merely as “creators-for-hire,” but as rightful stewards of their nation’s cultural essence. The Delhi High Court elevated moral rights from an arcane legal idea to something more powerful: the purpose of moral rights is to protect the profound emotional and intellectual bond of the artist to that which is created. The historic case also made it clear to public institutions: art is not just property, nor is it merely decoration; art is a living expression of a people’s heritage, and as such, it deserves respect and care. There at least, the standard evaluation changed; the spirit of art and the spirit of the creator must be acknowledged and honored. Today India is aligned with contemporary best practices on moral rights, especially with the philosophy of the Berne Convention, which assumes that moral rights, unlike other forms of intellectual property, are essentially perpetual and unbreakable. This view is accepted widely in Europe and, to some extent, in the United States. In the time of the digital easy adaptive share or creation of art using machines and devices, this case matters much, and the essential lesson is simple: nothing, not technology or guidelines or loopholes, can diminish the moral claim of the creator.
Conclusion: Protecting the Artist’s Eternal Bond
India has historically been a nation of creativity, a place where art, music, literature, and design are the living essence of its cultural identity. From the elaborate sculptures on ancient temples to the digital canvases of present-day creators, there is a profound spirit of innovation. Behind every creation, though, is something much more important than simply ownership; it is the artist’s moral bond with their work, a bond needing respect and legal recognition. The case of Amar Nath Sehgal is an important reminder of this bond in India; it is more than emotional; it is protected by law. The Delhi High Court’s interpretation of Section 57 of the Copyright Act (1957) confirmed that moral rights belong to the artist forever; the moral right to protect their honor, reputation, and integrity will survive even though the commercial rights have been sold or assigned.
The significance of these protections is to uphold moral rights, which empower creators to create freely, unafraid to alter it, misuse it, or erase it altogether. Their purpose is to allow creativity to remain authentic but to also ensure that every artist’s name, vision, and integrity are preserved over time and across all mediums. However, despite this famous precedent, many artists across India do not know what their moral rights are or how to enforce them. For some creators, that knowledge gap leaves them vulnerable to exploitation or silent infringement. This is why awareness and advocacy are important, so every artist, designer, and innovator can know that their rights are real and enforceable and protected under Indian law. At Logicize IP, we believe that the protection of creativity starts with understanding it. When we walk artists, designers, and creators through the intricacies of moral rights and copyright law, we can confidently make sure that their voice and vision are protected in principle as well as through contracts. As India grows as a global creative hub, respecting and protecting moral rights will be necessary for future generations of creators. Because when artists know their rights are secure, they may create without fear, and it is that fearless creativity that continues to grow India’s creative culture legacy.
Citation:
- Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India, 2005 (30) PTC 253 (Del), Delhi High Court, decided on 21 February 2005, Justice P. Nandrajog presiding.
-Authored by Bhumika Mukherjee
