Moral Rights vs Employer–Employee Authorship under Copyright Law | Gaurav Garg v. Aly Morani (2026 Delhi HC)

INTRODUCTION

The doctrine of moral rights as stated in Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (the right to be identified as the author of the work, and the right to protect the integrity of the work) occupies a distinct position in copyright law, protecting the author and their work. 

The case of Gaurav Garg vs. Aly Morani ^[1]deals specifically with how the author’s moral rights (especially the author’s special rights) will be affected by the employment or “contract of service” doctrine set out in Section 17(c) of the Copyright Act. The dispute centers on an individual claiming authorship and credit for the concept of the “IPL Awards,” opposing a production house that asserted ownership based on an employer-employee relationship.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Gaurav Garg (The Plaintiff) approached Aly Morani, Mohomed Motani and with a view to exploring the possibility of working together for Cineyug Flims Pvt. Ltd. In February, 2008. They agreed to work together through a special division called “Cineyug Signature,” where the Plaintiff served as Vice President. During this tenure, the Plaintiff claimed to have conceptualized the “IPL Awards” and prepared a presentation and a “Detailed Concept Note & Feasibility Study”.

The concept was presented to the IPL stakeholders (DLF IPL) and was accepted in principle. However, the event was deferred. In August of 2009, an MOU was created to outline how these two companies work together and how much they need the plaintiff in order to move forward on their business venture, i.e., the companies need to admit to the plaintiff that he helped create something that both companies want to sell. However, the Plaintiff was not given credits when the defendants publicly announced the event in April 2010. So, the plaintiff sent a cease and desist letter asking for credit as “Conceptualizer and Project Director” but the defendants denied the claim stating that he simply works for the company and company have all the rights over concepts. Hence the Plaintiff bough a lawsuit against both the defendants seeking permanent injunction and damages.

ISSUES RAISED

The Court framed the following key issues:

1. Whether the Plaintiff is the author of the literary work embodying the presentation and written expression of the “IPL Awards”.
2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to author’s special rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act.
3. Whether the MOU dated August 5, 2009, constituted a binding agreement regarding revenue sharing.
4. Whether the Plaintiff made out a case for infringement of rights under Section 57.

ARGUMENTS

Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff:

• The Plaintiff argued that he worked as consultant and not as employee relying upon TDS certificate in Form 26AS and the amount credited under section 194J of the Income Tax Act (IT Act) which refers to fees credited in return for professional or technical services provided unlike a salary which would have been under Section 194 of the IT Act. 
• He claimed that Clause 7(j) of the MOU, expressly acknowledged that the project was “conceptualized and planned” by him and there exists a copyright in presentation created for the event by the Plaintiff and his team. 
• He argued that Section 57 rights exist independently of copyright ownership. Even if he were an employee, he retained the right to attribution (paternity) for his intellectual creation.

Submissions on behalf of the Defendants:

• The Defendants argued the Plaintiff was an employee with a monthly salary of Rs. 75,000. They cited email correspondence where the Plaintiff used the company domain and referred to his “employment” and “salary”. 
• Under Section 17(c) of the Copyright Act, the employer is the first owner of the copyright for works created during the course of employment. Therefore, the Plaintiff had no rights to the work.
• The defendants contended that “concepts” are not copyrightable and that the presentation was a team effort by “Cineyug Signature,” not the Plaintiff’s exclusive work.
• The Defendants highlighted that the Plaintiff failed to present himself for complete cross-examination, leading to the closure of his evidence.

ORDER / JUDGMENT

The court while ruling in favor of Defendants dismissed the suit and held that the Plaintiff failed to prove that the he is the author of the literary work, Plaintiff was working as an employee and is not entitled to claim any special right of attribution or injunction from distortion, mutilation or modification as envisaged under Section 57 of the Act and Plaintiff is not entitled for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants.  

ANALYSIS

The judgment rests heavily on: procedural evidentiary failure and the statutory interpretation of employment under copyright law. 

• While determining the plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Delhi High Court proceeded exclusively on the basis of both the evidence presented to it and on statutory interpretation of the provisions of the Copyright Act. The Court correctly stated that moral rights are not automatic or abstract, but rather that moral rights arise only when authorship can be established through copyrightable material. As such, because the plaintiff did not establish himself as the author of the literary work at issue in this case, the plaintiff was unable to meet the required legal threshold for establishing that moral rights had been violated or otherwise invoked by the plaintiff.

• The Court found that the underpinning of its decision was that the plaintiff had not met their burden of providing sufficient evidence to satisfy the Court during cross-examination. The Court stated that untested (meaning unsworn) oral evidence and documents that the plaintiff was unable to provide had “almost negative” weight in the plaintiff’s favour when compared to the evidence presented by the employer. The Court also indicated that the employer’s emails indicated an employer-employee relationship between the plaintiff and the employer, which was established through these emails and email chains. Once the employer-employee relationship was established, the Court determined that, under subsection 17(1) of the Copyright Act, the employer became the owner of any copyrights created by the employee, which meant there was no possibility for the plaintiff to assert any rights in relation to authorship.

• The Court clarified that Section 57 does not expressly nullify Section 17(c) separately from the context of Sections 57 and 17(c) together. Essentially, moral rights will survive a granted assignment of rights under this section, however, they were initially created to protect the author of a work. In cases where the creator is defined by statute as being the employer, an employee may not assert moral rights simply by reason of contribution or involvement. In fact, the plaintiff’s claim was diminished further, as there were no allegations of any distortion or modification of the plaintiff’s work.

CHALLENGES / CRITICISM

• One of the criticisms of the judgement can be that the court have interpreted the concept of first ownership in a literal or narrow way. 
• The court have not examined the evolving nature of consultancy services/arrangements in creative industry. However, this criticism is just academic because the Plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden of proof and have not complied with the procedural requirements.   

CONCLUSION

Gaurav Garg vs Aly Morani is a clear indication of how important it is to follow legal procedures carefully when a party is involved in litigation. In this case, the plaintiff’s lack of compliance with the judge’s orders resulted in the plaintiff losing his case. Furthermore, the judgement reinforces the strength of s.17(c) of the Copyright Act in favour of employers. Therefore, unless there is a written agreement whereby an employee’s moral rights are protected, an employer will be able to hold the economic copyright and avoid any moral right infringement claims from the employee’s creator(s). Lastly, this case highlights the importance for creative professionals to have formal written agreements defining their status (consultants vs employees) and rights to attribution prior to commencing any work.

---

^[1] 2026 SCC OnLine Del 136

Link to similar articles: https://jpassociates.co.in/taylor-swift-vs-big-machine-decoding-copyright-quandaries/