No Copyright in Shared Street Play Themes, Delhi Court Rejects Arvind Gaur’s Suit Against Shilpi Marwaha
Introduction
The District Judge (Commercial Court), Saket, Delhi, has dismissed a copyright infringement suit filed by theatre director Arvind Gaur, founder of Asmita Theatre Group, against his former student Shilpi Marwaha and Sukhmanch Theatre, holding that no infringement was made out in the absence of proof of literal or scene-by-scene copying. By judgment dated 10 April 2026, District Judge Vrinda Kumari held that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendants’ performances constituted a “literal imitation” of his copyrighted street plays, reiterating the settled principle that copyright protects expression and not ideas, themes, or titles.
Factual Background
The plaintiff, Arvind Gaur, claimed copyright in more than 40 street plays, including 11 plays compiled in his book Nukkad Par Dastak. He asserted that, apart from authorship, he possessed copyright in the “unique design and direction” of several of these productions.
It was alleged that Shilpi Marwaha, who had remained associated with Asmita Theatre Group for over eight years, had access to his scripts, stage concepts, and direction methods before leaving the group in 2017 to form Sukhmanch Theatre. According to the plaintiff, the defendants thereafter staged his works with only minor changes and commercially exploited his scripts, designs, and direction without authorization.
The defendants denied infringement and contended that:
- several plays were collectively created,
- some plays were based on public domain themes or source materials,
- permissions had been obtained where necessary,
- the performances were undertaken for social awareness rather than commercial gain.
It was also argued that a director cannot claim copyright over works he did not author, merely on the basis of staging inputs.
Procedural Background
The plaintiff instituted a commercial copyright suit seeking:
- permanent injunction,
- damages,
- rendition of accounts,
- restraint against further performances.
The principal allegation was that the defendants had copied the plaintiff’s street plays, especially those forming part of Nukkad Par Dastak, and were performing them through Sukhmanch Theatre.
The Commercial Court was therefore required to determine whether the plaintiff had discharged the burden of proving copyright subsistence, ownership, and actionable copying in the defendants’ performances.
Issues
1. Whether the defendants’ street play performances constituted literal, scene-by-scene, or substantial copying of the plaintiff’s copyrighted works?
2. Whether the plaintiff established copyright in the alleged “unique design and direction” of the plays?
3. Whether the use of the title “Dastak” and a common social theme amounted to copyright infringement?
4. Whether the plaintiff proved commercial exploitation and unauthorized use by the defendants?
Contentions of Parties
The plaintiff contended that the defendants, having gained prolonged access to his scripts and staging methods through their association with Asmita Theatre Group, were performing his copyrighted works with only cosmetic changes. It was argued that the defendants had copied not only the scripts but also the plaintiff’s distinctive design and directorial treatment.
The defendants denied any copying and submitted that the alleged overlap pertained only to broad social themes such as atrocities against women, which are incapable of copyright protection. It was further argued that many street plays are staged in similar forms across theatre groups, and that the plaintiff had failed to establish any originality in the claimed design or direction.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Commercial Court reiterated the fundamental copyright principle that there can be no copyright in an idea, theme, subject, or title, and that actionable infringement requires proof of copying of the form, expression, arrangement, and dramatic treatment of the work.
A central deficiency identified by the Court was the plaintiff’s failure to place any comparative material on record showing how the defendants’ performances reproduced his scripts in a scene-by-scene, line-by-line, or literal fashion. The Court specifically noted the absence of:
- comparative scripts,
- performance transcripts,
- side-by-side analysis,
- evidence of literal dramatic imitation.
The Court found that except for the title “Dastak”, no reliable material was produced to show that the defendants had staged any other play from the plaintiff’s compilation Nukkad Par Dastak. Even in relation to “Dastak”, the Court held that both versions dealt with the common social issue of atrocities against women, and the use of the same title could not by itself amount to infringement.
The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s assertion of copyright in “unique design and direction”, observing that street plays are ordinarily staged in broadly similar fashion, and no evidence was produced to establish any protectable originality in the plaintiff’s claimed staging style. Further, the Court found no material proving commercial exploitation by the defendants, thereby undermining the plaintiff’s claim for damages and accounts. The burden of proof thus remained undischarged.
Decision
The District Judge (Commercial Court), Saket, dismissed the suit filed by Arvind Gaur against Shilpi Marwaha and Sukhmanch Theatre, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove literal copying, scene-by-scene reproduction, protectable directorial originality, or commercial exploitation. All reliefs including injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts were consequently denied.