Authored By: Vaishnavi Bhatnagar
Amity University, Lucknow
Case Title: Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India
Citation: 117 (2005) DLT 717, 2005 (30) PTC 253 (DEL)
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog
Bench: Single Judge Bench
Date: February 21, 2005
Parties Involved
Petitioner:
Amar Nath Sehgal, a highly respected and internationally recognized Indian sculptor, was the petitioner in this case. He was awarded the Padma Bhushan and was well known for his public art installations. His work reflected India’s rich cultural and historical heritage.1
Respondent:
The Union of India, represented by the Ministry of Urban Development and relevant government officials responsible for maintaining the premises of Vigyan Bhawan, was the respondent.2
Facts of the Case
In the early 1950s, the Government of India approached a well-known artist named Amar Nath Sehgal with a special request. They invited him to create a large bronze mural for Vigyan Bhawan, which is an important national conference centre located in New Delhi.3 Sehgal accepted the offer, and after years of work, the mural was completed and installed in 1962. It was an enormous artwork, stretching over 140 feet in length, and it beautifully represented the rich cultural and historical heritage of India. The mural soon became one of the most famous public artworks in the country.
However, things took a sad turn a few decades later. In the late 1970s or early 1980s, when renovations were happening at Vigyan Bhawan, the mural was removed without informing Sehgal. The government did not even consult him or give him any notice. Even worse, the mural was not taken care of properly. Instead of being safely preserved, it was dumped in a government warehouse and left to gather dust and deteriorate. This showed a clear lack of respect for the artwork and for the artist who created it.
Sehgal had no idea this had happened. For several years, he remained completely unaware that his beloved mural had been taken down and neglected. When he finally found out, he was deeply hurt and disturbed. He tried to reach out to the authorities many times, asking them to restore the mural or at least give a proper explanation. But his efforts were met with silence and the government did not respond meaningfully to his requests.
Feeling ignored and disrespected, Sehgal decided to take legal action. In 1992, he filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court. He claimed that the way his mural was handled was a violation of his moral rights as an artist. He relied on Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which protects the moral rights of authors and creators, even if the physical ownership of the artwork has been transferred to someone else.4
The main issue in the case was this: Did the government’s act of removing the mural without notice, storing it poorly, and letting it get damaged violate Sehgal’s moral rights, even though the government had paid him for it and technically owned it?5
Issues Raised
The following legal issues were framed before the court:
Whether the unauthorized removal and damage of the mural by the State violated the moral rights of the artist under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
- Whether moral rights continue to exist independently of economic or ownership rights in the physical artwork.6
- Whether the petitioner was entitled to restoration of the artwork and compensation for mental distress and reputational damage.7
- Whether the actions of the State violated international standards laid down under treaties like the Berne Convention, to which India is a signatory.8
- Whether public authorities are legally obligated to safeguard culturally significant works of art, especially those held in public trust.9
Arguments of the Parties
Arguments by the Petitioner (Amar Nath Sehgal):
Sehgal strongly asserted that while the Government had paid for and took possession of the physical artwork, the intellectual and moral rights attached to the mural remained with him as the original creator.
He argued that the mural was not merely a decorative installation but a creative embodiment of his personality and vision. Its unauthorized dismantling without his consent or knowledge amounted to mutilation and distortion, which caused him severe emotional and reputational harm.10
He relied on Section 57 of the Copyright Act, which provides authors the right to claim authorship of their work and to prevent any distortion, mutilation, or modification which would be prejudicial to their honour or reputation.11
Sehgal sought the return of the mural remnants, permission to restore them, and compensation for the violation of his moral rights.12
He also emphasized that the Government’s conduct reflected a broader cultural apathy towards artists and their contributions.13
Arguments by the Respondent (Union of India):
The Government contended that once the mural was paid for and handed over, it became State property, giving it full discretion over its treatment.
The authorities argued that the removal of the mural was not an act of intentional harm, but a routine procedure during the renovation of Vigyan Bhawan.14
It was further submitted that no provisions under Section 57 had been violated as there was no deliberate mutilation or intent to defame the artist.15
The Government questioned whether the moral rights claimed by the petitioner had any legal standing once ownership of the mural had changed hands.16
Judgment
The Delhi High Court delivered a historic and far-reaching judgment in favor of the petitioner, Amar Nath Sehgal, recognizing the seriousness of the harm caused by the Government’s actions and the importance of protecting the moral rights of artists in India. The court’s ruling was considered landmark not only for its outcome but also for its progressive and humanistic interpretation of the law.
Recognition of Violation of Moral Rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957:
The court acknowledged that the Government’s unauthorized removal, careless storage, and disrespectful treatment of the mural amounted to a clear violation of Sehgal’s moral rights as defined under Section 57 of the Copyright Act. It accepted that the way the mural was dismantled, without informing or consulting the artist was prejudicial to his honour, reputation, and emotional well-being. The judgment emphasized that moral rights are a vital part of an artist’s legal protection, and any act that harms the creator’s dignity is legally actionable.17
Clarification on the Persistence of Moral Rights Despite Transfer of Ownership:
The court made clear a key legal point: moral rights do not disappear just because an artwork is sold or transferred. Even though the Government took possession of the mural after buying it from Sehgal, his moral rights as the artist stayed the same.18 The court said these rights are natural, can’t be taken away, and don’t depend on who owns the artwork. This decision supported artists in India, reinforcing the idea that the creator’s identity and work can’t be ignored just because ownership changed.
Order for the Mural to Be Returned to Sehgal:
Considering the emotional and cultural value of the mural, the court ordered that the remaining parts of the artwork be given back to Amar Nath Sehgal.19 This gave him the chance to repair or restore his work if he wanted, and to regain the respect and dignity that had been lost because of the State’s poor handling. The court saw restoration as an important part of justice, allowing the artist to bring his creation back to life in a respectful and meaningful way.
Award of Symbolic Compensation:
The court told the Union of India to pay Rs.5 lakhs to Sehgal as a symbolic form of compensation.20 This amount wasn’t meant to replace lost profits or fix physical damage, but to show that the artist had suffered harm. It was meant to acknowledge the emotional pain, mental distress, and harm to his reputation caused by the mishandling and disrespect shown to his artwork. This compensation was a moral and legal recognition of the State’s mistakes.
Broader View on the State’s Cultural Responsibility:
Beyond the specific case, the court used this opportunity to make a broader point about public art. It stressed that public artworks are not just objects or government property, but expressions of national identity, heritage, and pride. The court noted that governments have a duty to protect such works, especially those displayed publicly and representing the nation’s artistic spirit. It warned that failing to care for these works can damage the country’s cultural integrity and show disrespect to artists and their role in society.
Legal Reasoning
Justice Pradeep Nandrajog’s analysis of moral rights was deep and wide-ranging.
He explained that moral rights, as outlined in Section 57, especially the rights to authorship and integrity, are not transferred or lost when an artwork is sold. These rights are part of the artist’s identity and come from the connection between the artist and their work.
The court stressed that dismantling and mishandling the mural wasn’t just an administrative mistake, it was a symbolic attack on the artist’s soul and reputation. ∙ It noted that moral rights are deeply personal and emotional, with the artist’s identity being tied to their creation.
The court also compared Indian law with international standards, especially referencing the Berne Convention, which requires member countries to protect artists’ moral rights.
∙ Justice Nandrajog observed:
“We cannot ignore international obligations while interpreting domestic laws, especially when those obligations emphasize human dignity and artistic integrity.”21
The mural was seen as a work of national importance, and its destruction was viewed as a strike against the country’s heritage and the artist’s legacy.22
The court said that not consulting or informing the artist and then failing to care for the artwork broke both legal and ethical norms expected of the government in preserving public art.23
Conclusion
This case is seen as a major moment in Indian legal history, especially in the area of intellectual property law. What makes it significant is that the court didn’t just follow legal rules or definitions. Instead, it took a kind and human-centered approach, placing value on principles like dignity, cultural respect, and international legal standards.
Justice Nandrajog, who wrote the judgment, highlighted that copyright law isn’t only about money or ownership. It also protects the personal bond that an artist has with their work. According to him, the artist’s reputation, identity, and emotional connection are just as important as the financial value of their work.
The court also sent a strong message to government departments and public authorities. It reminded them that they have both a moral and legal responsibility to respect and protect art, especially when it is publicly commissioned. Treating an artwork carelessly or disrespectfully is not acceptable.
Although the compensation given to Sehgal wasn’t very large, it had deep symbolic meaning. It showed that the court recognized the pain, emotional damage, and cultural injury caused by the way the mural was handled. In other words, it wasn’t about the money, but about justice and recognition.
Today, this judgment is often referred to in legal writings, articles, and discussions. It has become an important part of how Indian law thinks about the moral rights of artists. It has influenced how governments, institutions, and the public think about and treat creative works.
Critical Reflections
This decision reaffirmed that law and justice are not only about legal rules, but also about upholding dignity, empathy, and humanity. It is a classic example of how courts can balance legal interpretation with cultural and emotional awareness.
It also highlights a gap in the Indian administrative system regarding the protection of art, suggesting the need for legal reforms and new frameworks to prevent future disregard for heritage.
As digital art and AI-generated content become more common, the legacy of Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India becomes even more important, setting a foundational legal precedent for modern interpretations of authorship and emotional ownership.
Reference(S):
1 Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India, 117 (2005) DLT 717, 718 (Del HC)
2id.
3id. at 719.
4Id. at 721.
5Id. at 722.
6Id. at 728.
7Id. at 729.
8Id. at 730.
9Id. at 732.
10 Id. at 724.
11 The Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, § 57, INDIA CODE
12 Id. at 726.
13 Id. at 727.
14 Id. at 728.
15 Id. at 729.
16 Id. at 730.
17 Id. at 753–54.
18 Id. at 732.
19 Id. at 735.
20 Id. at 737.
21 Amar Nath Sehgal, 117 (2005) DLT at 739.
22 Id. at 740.
23 Id. at 741.
