Delhi Court Dismisses Arvind Gaur's Copyright Suit Against Former Student Shilpi Marwaha Over Street Plays

A Delhi court has dismissed a copyright suit by Asmita Theatre Group founder and drama director Arvind Gaur against his former student and actor Shilpi Marwaha and Sukhmanch Theatre, holding that no infringement of his copyrighted street plays is made out in the absence of proof of literal copying.

District Judge (Commercial Court), Saket, Vrinda Kumari, in a judgment dated April 10, 2026, held that Gaur failed to establish that the defendants' performances were a “literal imitation” or a scene-by-scene copy of his works.

Gaur had sought a permanent injunction, damages, and rendition of accounts, alleging that Marwaha's group was commercially performing his works, including 11 street plays compiled in his book Nukkad Par Dastak, using his scripts, designs and direction without authorisation. He claimed to have copyright over more than 40 street plays and a “unique design and direction” for several productions.

He contended that Marwaha, who was associated with his group for over eight years, had access to his scripts before leaving in 2017 to form Sukhmanch Theatre and allegedly staging his works with minor changes.

Marwaha denied the allegations, stating that many plays were created collectively, some were in the public domain, and permissions had been obtained where required. She also argued that a director cannot claim copyright over works he did not author and that the performances were aimed at social awareness and not commercial gain.

The court reiterated that there can be no copyright in an idea, theme, or title and that infringement requires proof of copying of the form and expression of a work. It found that Gaur failed to produce any material showing that the defendants' performances were a scene-by-scene or literal reproduction or to provide any comparative analysis.

It further noted that, apart from the title “Dastak”, there was no evidence that the defendants staged other plays from Gaur's book. Even in relation to “Dastak”, both versions dealt with the common theme of atrocities against women, and the use of the same title did not amount to infringement.

Observing that “a street play is staged in similar fashion everywhere,” the court also found no evidence to support Gaur's claim of unique “design and direction” or of commercial exploitation by the defendants.

Holding that Gaur failed to discharge the burden of proof, the court dismissed the suit and denied all reliefs.