1. Facts of the Case
In 2023, a businessman named Raj Malhotra constructed a lavish house in Jaipur. What made his home unique was not just the luxury, but its striking resemblance to a famous Mughal-era monument—the Humayun’s Tomb in Delhi. From the dome to the intricate arches, even the ornamental façade, every element echoed the centuries-old monument.
Tourists and locals began to notice the resemblance. Photos of Raj’s house went viral, sparking admiration from some and criticism from others. Conservationists and heritage experts claimed that copying such architecture not only undermines the historical value of the original monument, but may also involve intellectual property rights infringement. A public interest litigation was eventually filed in a local High Court, questioning whether Raj had violated any existing legal protections related to the original monument.
2. Issues of the Case
The legal questions that arise from this scenario are:
- Does architecture of a historical monument enjoy intellectual property (IP) protection under Indian law?
- If yes, can a private individual replicate such design for personal use without permission?
- Is there any violation under the Copyright Act, 1957, or other applicable laws?
- Do monuments classified as public property or national heritage hold any design rights?
These issues bring together multiple areas of law—intellectual property, heritage protection, and moral rights—which must be analyzed collectively.
3. Legal Principles and Relevant Case Law
a. Copyright Protection of Architecture
Under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, “artistic work” includes architectural works. Section 13 further clarifies that original architectural designs enjoy protection from the moment they are created.
However, monuments like Humayun’s Tomb were built in the 16th century, long before any modern copyright law came into existence. As such, these works fall under the category of public domain. This means that their original creators’ copyrights have expired, and the architecture is no longer protected by copyright law.
b. The Public Domain Doctrine
Any work that enters the public domain is free to use by anyone without the need to obtain licenses or pay royalties. Most historical buildings, including temples, forts, and mausoleums, belong to this category. Since these monuments were either built by rulers or by unknown architects centuries ago, no identifiable copyright owner exists today.
Therefore, copying a historical monument’s structure does not, in itself, constitute copyright infringement—as long as no additional protected artwork, such as modern renovations or protected photographs, is used.
c. The Role of the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)
Under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, monuments notified by the ASI are considered of national importance. While this law restricts construction in and around such monuments, it does not grant exclusive intellectual property rights over their design or architecture. Its primary function is to protect the monument’s physical integrity and surroundings, not to control stylistic replication elsewhere.
d. Relevant Case: Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India (2005)
Though not directly related to architecture, this landmark case dealt with moral rights of authors under Section 57 of the Copyright Act. It ruled that even if a creator’s copyright has expired, mutilation or derogatory use of their work can be challenged under moral rights.
In this context, if someone were to copy a heritage monument and distort it in a way that offends public sentiment or heritage values, it could be subject to legal scrutiny—not under traditional copyright law but under cultural heritage or moral rights frameworks.
4. Judgment and Analysis
After considering all legal frameworks and precedents, the court concluded that Raj Malhotra did not violate any intellectual property law by copying the architectural style of Humayun’s Tomb.
Since the original monument is centuries old and has no identifiable author, the structure falls into the public domain. As a result, its architectural design is not eligible for copyright protection under the Copyright Act, 1957.
Moreover, there is no law in India that grants exclusive rights over the aesthetic elements of a protected monument once the copyright has lapsed, unless such use is defamatory, offensive, or physically damaging to the original structure. In this case, Raj used the design purely for aesthetic admiration, without harming or distorting the image of the original.
However, the judgment included a caveat. The court emphasized that:
- Any commercial use of the design, such as branding or selling replicas, may require additional scrutiny.
- Any attempt to register a trademark based on the monument’s image would likely fail, as public heritage cannot become exclusive property.
The court also advised the Ministry of Culture and ASI to consider guidelines for the ethical use of heritage architecture, especially as 3D modeling and AI-generated designs are increasingly blurring the lines between inspiration and imitation.
