Author: Ananya Thakur, Symbiosis Law School, Pune
TO THE POINT
The accelerating development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies has presented intricate challenges to India’s copyright law, specifically with regard to the copyrightability of AI-generated works. The Raghav Artificial Intelligence v. Union of India (2024) case, which was decided by the Delhi High Court, is a milestone decision regarding whether computer program-generated works can be considered authors under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. The court ruled that works generated by artificial intelligence, with little or no human intervention, cannot enjoy protection as a copyright, affirming the human-oriented paradigm of authorship. This decision, followed by a 2025 clarification from the Supreme Court, has sparked debates about the adequacy of existing copyright laws in addressing AI’s creative capabilities. This article critically examines the Raghav case, its implications for AI-generated works, and the broader question of balancing technological innovation with India’s intellectual property framework. It further analyzes the 2025 clarification and its impact on India’s creative industries and global copyright harmonization.
ABSTRACT
The Raghav Artificial Intelligence v. Union of India (2024) ruling is a reflection of the conflict between technological progress and the classic limits of copyright law in India. The Delhi High Court held that an artificial intelligence (AI) system, namely RAGHAV (Responsive AI for Generative High-Art Ventures) tool, could not be declared an author under Section 2(d) of the Copyright Act, 1957, since authorship is human-based. The 2025 Supreme Court clarification reiterate this position but stressed legislative intervention in order to remedy the role played by AI in creative works. This article analyzes the legal reasoning behind the Raghav judgment, its alignment with global copyright principles, and its implications for India’s burgeoning AI industry. It argues that while the human-centric approach preserves the integrity of copyright law, it risks stifling innovation by excluding AI-generated works from protection.
Proposed reforms seek to balance the rights of human creators, AI developers, and the public interest in encouraging creativity within India’s constitutional structure.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON
The Raghav case deals with a fundamental copyright idea like originality, authorship, and creative expression based on the Berne Convention and the Indian Copyright Act, 1957.Originality describes a work’s independent creation with a small amount of creativity, whereas authorship indicates the human process of intellectual creation.The case also references the work-for-hire doctrine and the skill and labour principle, traditionally used in Indian jurisprudence to determine copyright eligibility.
The 2025 Supreme Court clarification brought into play the discourse on sui generis protection for AI-created works with comparisons with database rights under the EU’s Database Directive. By traversing these definitions, this article examines the interplay between India’s human-oriented copyright traditions and the autonomous functionalities of AI systems.
BACKGROUND: RAGHAV ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE V. UNION OF INDIA
Raghav Technologies Pvt. Ltd. applied to the Indian Copyright Office to register a digital work of painting, Celestial Harmony, under its AI system, RAGHAV, in 2023. Raghav Technologies appealed this ruling before the Delhi High Court, contending that the independent creative process of RAGHAV entitled it to authorship rights, the company being the copyright owner under a work-for-hire comparison. The court followed precedents such as Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak and R.G. Anand v. Delux Films.
The 2025 Supreme Court ruling, after an appeal, upheld the High Court judgment but emphasized the necessity of legislative action addressing the contribution of AI to creative markets. The court observed that although AI cannot be an author, human-AI collaborative work may get protection if human creativity is evident enough. The ruling carries considerable weight for India’s AI ecosystem, particularly following the Copyright Office’s bungled 2020 grant and later withdrawal of copyright to an AI work.
THE 2025 CLARIFICATION: IS AUTHORSHIP REDEFINED?
The primary question in the Raghav appeal was whether copyright protection could be available for AI-generated creations, absent meaningful human contribution, under Indian law. The court dismissed the contention that RAGHAV’s independent creativity was entitled to authorship, as AI systems lack human intent or consciousness. However, it acknowledged that works created through human-AI collaboration could be copyrightable if the human contributor exercises sufficient creative control over the output.
This judgment harmonizes with global systems such as the Berne Convention, which by implication presumes human authorship. It is different, though, from regimes such as the UK, in which the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 provides protection for computer-generated works, identifying the programmer or user as the author. The Raghav judgment therefore emphasizes that India must grapple with the creative output of AI in its distinct socio-legal environment, weighing innovation against constitutional values such as equality and justice under Articles 14 and 21.
CASE LAWS
Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008)
The Supreme Court of India ruled that originality has a minimum level of creativity and intellectual effort that is necessarily associated with human authorship.[^16] This decision was pivotal to the Raghav ruling, since the court concluded that RAGHAV’s work wasn’t characterized by human creativity.
R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978)
This case asserted that copyright defends original expressions that are the product of human skill and labour.[^17] The Raghav court applied this to maintain that AI does not have the intentionality that is necessary for authorship.
Infopaq International A/S v. Danske Dagblades Forening (2009)
The European Court of Justice affirmed that copyright defends original expressions of the author’s intellectual creation.[^18] This confirms the Raghav decision’s emphasis on human agency.
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991)
The U.S. Supreme Court established that originality entails human ingenuity, a rule repeated in Raghav to refute AI authorship.[^19]
ANALYSIS OF THE 2025 CLARIFICATION
The Raghav clarification shows the judiciary’s reluctance in pushing copyright law beyond its human-oriented paradigm without a legislative lead. This method guarantees conformity with India’s copyright case law but could create a protection deficit for works produced using AI, deterring investment in AI-based creative industries. With AI tools such as RAGHAV generating more complex outputs, denying copyright protection could thwart India’s ambitions to become an international AI hub, considering the government’s promotion of AI innovation through the Digital India initiative.
The decision also highlights the deference of the judiciary to the will of parliament in line with the doctrine of the separation of powers entrenched in the Indian Constitution. While Upendra Baxi contends that courts need to be restrained to uphold democratic rule, intervening only where laws are unconstitutional, this deference can prolong amendments to the Copyright Act, 1957, due to India’s sluggish legislative system.
Internationally, the Raghav ruling positions India alongside jurisdictions such as the U.S., which refuse AI authorship, but diverges from the UK’s accommodative practice. The decision invites India to explore sui generis protection, like the EU’s Database Directive, to cover AI works without upsetting established copyright principles. Scholarship in the form of books by Arpan Banerjee, discussing digital copyright issues, warns against judicial activism, requiring legislative ingenuity to preserve constitutional balance.
PROPOSED REFORMS
In order to meet the challenges created by AI-generated works, the following reforms are suggested:
Sui Generis Protection for AI-Generated Works
Implement a sui generis regime, similar to the EU’s Database Directive, for the protection of works produced by AI. This will vest limited rights in AI users or developers, promoting innovation without diluting human authorship.
Clarifying Human-AI Collaboration
Modify the Copyright Act, 1957, to specifically acknowledge works resulting from human-AI collaboration, identifying the human contributor as the author. Clear criteria should delineate the level of human participation necessary for eligibility for copyright protection.
International Harmonization
India needs to work with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to modify the Berne Convention to ensure worldwide uniformity in handling AI-created works.
Independent Oversight Body
Create a regulatory agency within the Ministry of Commerce and Industry to review the copyrightability of AI-generated works and provide for constitutional norms under Articles 14 and 21.
Judicial and Public Awareness Training
Conduct training programs for judges, policymakers, and creators to enhance understanding of AI’s role in creative processes, aligning with Granville Austin’s vision of cooperative federalism.
CONCLUSION
The Raghav Artificial Intelligence v. Union of India case and its 2025 Supreme Court clarification highlight the urgent need to adapt India’s copyright law to AI’s transformative potential. By reaffirming the human-centric nature of authorship, the courts have preserved the integrity of traditional copyright principles but exposed gaps in protecting AI-generated works. The decision tests India to articulate its position regarding AI authorship, finding a balance between innovation and constitutional principles such as justice and equality. Building on precedents such as R.G. Anand and Eastern Book Company, and academic contributions of Baxi and Banerjee, the Raghav ruling highlights the judiciary’s role as constitutional guardian, and not that of a legislator.
Reforms proposed, such as sui generis rights and international harmonization, seek to fill this vacuum, making sure that the copyright regime of India adapts to keep pace with the needs of the AI age. With AI transforming creative economies, the Raghav case is a turning point for redefining authorship and developing a legal environment that accommodates human and machine creativity alike.
FAQS
Why Is the Raghav Case Important for Copyright Law?
The Raghav Artificial Intelligence v. Union of India is a milestone judgment that discusses the copyrightability of works created by artificial intelligence under Indian law. The 2024 judgment of the Delhi High Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2025, explained that only human authors qualify for being treated as authors under the Copyright Act, 1957, because of the intellectual creativity requirement. This decision is important as it sets a precedent for dealing with AI-created works within India, a nation that is going rapidly towards AI innovation through initiatives such as Digital India. It points towards the inadequacies of current copyright law in providing a framework for autonomous AI products, setting up a larger debate on the imperative of legislative change. By affirming the human-centred aspect of authorship, the case maintains consistency with constitutional principles such as equality under Article 14, while calling on policymakers to close the protection gap for AI-generated works to stimulate innovation.
How Does the 2025 Clarification Affect AI Developers?
The 2025 Supreme Court clarification in Raghav confirms again that AI systems such as RAGHAV cannot be viewed as authors, refusing copyright protection to completely autonomous AI-generated works. For AI developers, this creates significant challenges, as it limits their ability to claim intellectual property rights over outputs produced by their systems, potentially reducing incentives for investment in AI-driven creative technologies. However, the clarification recognizes that works created through human-AI collaboration may qualify for copyright if the human exercises substantial creative control, encouraging developers to integrate human oversight into their AI tools.
What Are the Global Implications of Raghav?
The Raghav ruling has global copyright law implications with wide-reaching effects, as it puts India in line with AI-denying jurisdictions such as the U.S., yet at odds with the UK over giving computer-generated works copyright. This disparity causes difficulties for Indian creators and businesses in global markets, as variable legal standards in foreign countries could complicate cross-border collaboration. The decision highlights the necessity for India to participate in international negotiations, especially via the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), to harmonize copyright law for AI-generated works.
Which Case Laws Uphold the Raghav Ruling?
The Raghav ruling is upheld by various fundamental precedents that highlight the human element of copyright authorship. Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008) held that originality must involve human intellectual labor, a concept that is crucial in rejecting RAGHAV’s claim to authorship.
R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978) explained that copyright safeguards expressions of human skill and labour, affirming the Raghav court’s emphasis on human intentionality.
Globally, Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1990) in the U.S. also highlighted that human ingenuity is needed for originality, a maxim repeated in Raghav to dismiss AI authorship. The cases together form a strong judicial basis for the Raghav judgment.
What Reforms Are Needed to Support the Raghav Clarification?
In order to respond to the challenges from AI works, various reforms are imperative. First, the imposition of a sui generis protection regime, akin to the EU’s Database Directive, would grant limited rights to users or developers of AI, promoting innovation without sacrificing human authorship. Second, the Copyright Act, 1957, should be amended to define the threshold of human intervention needed for human-AI collaborative works to be eligible for copyright protection to ensure legal certainty. Third, India ought to spearhead initiatives via WIPO to revise the Berne Convention in order to globalize harmonization of AI copyright legislations. Fourth, an independent regulatory body under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry should be established to evaluate AI-generated works and ensure compliance with constitutional norms under Articles 14 and 21. Finally, comprehensive training for judges, policymakers, and creators is needed to enhance understanding of AI’s role in creativity, fostering informed decision-making in line with India’s constitutional ethos.
