Mr. Lall, was a sculptor of international repute and fame. In 1957, he was approached by the Government of India, to design murals to be installed on the walls of Vigyan Bhavan. Plaintiff accepted the offer and completed

In Amarnath Sehgal v. Union of India [2005(30) PTC253(Del))] brought to the forefront the debate over the moral rights of authors and creators. The main issues for determination before the Court were (a) whether the suit was barred by limitation (b) whether Mr. Sehgal had moral right over the mural even when the copyright vested with the UOI (c) Has UOI infringed moral rights of Mr. Sehgal (d) whether Mr. Sehgal has suffered any damage (e) Relief. Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 provides for what are termed as Author's Special Rights, better known as Moral Rights. Founded on Article 6bis of the Berne Convention, Moral Rights have two key prongs (1) Right to claim authorship of the work (sometimes referred to as Rights of Attribution/Paternity Rights) and (2) Right against distortion, modification or mutilation of one's work if such distortion or mutilation would be prejudicial to the author's honour or reputation (or Integrity Rights). These moral rights are independent of the author's copyright. They exist even after the assignment of the copyright, either wholly or partially. On the question as to whether the suit was barred by limitation, the Court ruled that the correspondence between UOI and Mr. Sehgal contain the acknowledgement by the former of the right of the latter over the mural and therefore the suit is not barred by limitation. The Court examined at length the national and the international framework for protection of the moral rights of the Author. The Court was of the opinion that it is a narrow view the derogatory treatment of the creative work would mean deletion to, distortion, mutilation or modification to, or the use of the work in setting which is entirely inappropriate. The broad view is that mutilation is nothing but the destruction of the work as to render it imperfect and is therefore prejudicial to the reputation of the author. Recognizing the moral rights of the Mr. Sehgal over the Mural, Pradeep Nandrajog J. ruled: "mural whatever be its form today is too precious to be reduced to scrap and languish in the warehouse of the Government of India. It is only Mr. Sehgal who has the right to recreate his work and therefore has the right to receive the broken down mural. He also has the right to be compensated for the loss of reputation, honor and mental injury due to the offending acts of UOI". The Court passed mandatory injunction against the UOI directing it to return the mural to Mr. Sehgal within two weeks from the date of judgment. Court passed a declaration transferring all the rights over the mural from UOI to Mr. Sehgal and an absolute right to recreate the mural and sell the same. The Court also granted damages to the tune of ₹ 5 lacs and cost of suit to Mr. Sehgal against UOI. The case of Amar Nath Sehgal's mural throws into relief the importance of the Section 57 provision of the Indian Copyright Act, and of the weight it has been accorded by courts in India. It also gives reason to thank the wisdom of those who resolved, all those years ago, that there should be a higher law to protect the soul and essence of artistic expression as much as or more than - the physical or tangible form of that expression. The Court has given a wide construction to the moral rights of the author under the copyright law. The Statute only provides for the grant of injunction and damages in cases where any distortion, mutilation, modification or other act in relation to the work if such distortion etc would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. Court has read into the forgoing provision the 'right of the author to receive the copyrighted work for the purposes of restoration and sell it'. The ratio of the case is establishes the proposition that 'where the owner (not being the author) of the copyright work, treats the work in a manner that is prejudicial to the reputation and honor of the author, the Court may transfer all rights over the work to the author'.