## Facts

- Amar Nath Sehgal, a well-known Indian sculptor, was commissioned by the Government of India to create a large bronze mural for installation in a public building in New Delhi (Vigyan Bhavan).
- Sehgal created and delivered the mural, and it was installed in a prominent public location where it was intended to be viewed by the public.
- Years later, during renovations and related administrative actions, government authorities removed the mural from display.
- In the course of removal and subsequent handling, the mural was not preserved with due care; several components were lost, and the work was left damaged, resulting in the effective destruction of the artwork as a complete integrated work.
- Sehgal asserted that the government’s actions impaired the integrity of the mural and harmed his honor and reputation as an artist.
- Sehgal filed suit in the Delhi High Court under § 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (India), seeking relief for violation of his moral rights, including damages and measures to prevent further injury to the work and to his reputation.

## Issues

1. Whether an artist’s moral rights under § 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957—particularly the right to protect the integrity of the work—remain enforceable even when the physical object and related economic interests in a commissioned work are with the commissioning government.
2. Whether the government’s removal of the mural from public view and its subsequent loss and damage during handling and storage constituted “distortion, mutilation, modification, or other act” prejudicial to the author’s honor or reputation under § 57.
3. What remedies are appropriate for a § 57 moral-rights violation arising from the destruction or severe damage of a work of public art.

## Decision

- The Delhi High Court held that Sehgal’s moral rights under § 57 were independent of ownership of the physical mural and survived any transfer or vesting of economic interests connected with the commission.
- The court found that the removal of the mural and the negligent treatment that led to loss of parts and substantial damage amounted to mutilation or other impermissible treatment of the work within § 57.
- The court accepted that such treatment was prejudicial to Sehgal’s honor or reputation, given the nature of the work, its public setting, and the injury caused by its destruction as an artistic whole.
- The court granted relief in Sehgal’s favor, including damages, and directed that the remaining portions of the mural be returned to him, along with orders aimed at preventing further harm to the remnants.

## Legal Principles

- Moral rights protected by § 57 (including the right of integrity) are distinct from economic rights and are not extinguished merely because a work was commissioned or because the commissioner owns the physical embodiment of the work.
- Acts that result in the loss, breakage, or destruction of an artwork can qualify as “mutilation” or an “other act” in relation to the work under § 57, even if the defendant characterizes the conduct as removal or storage.
- A work’s integrity is not limited to protection against minor alterations; severe physical damage and loss of constituent parts that destroy the work as a coherent whole can violate § 57.
- Prejudice to an author’s honor or reputation may be found where the treatment of the work conveys disregard for the author’s artistic standing or results in public or professional harm tied to the work’s destruction.
- Remedies for moral-rights violations may include damages and injunctive or restorative relief suited to stopping ongoing injury, including return of the remaining material of the work to the author when continued possession by the defendant would risk further damage.

## Conclusion

Sehgal v. Union of India held that § 57 moral rights continue to protect an artist’s connection to and integrity of a commissioned public artwork, and that the government’s removal and mishandling—leading to loss of pieces and destruction of the mural—violated those rights, justifying damages and return of the surviving remnants to the artist.


Sehgal v. Union of India, 2005 WL 2205308, [2005] F.S.R. 39, 2005 (30) PTC 253 Del. (2005)