An architect is the author of a building in the same way a novelist is the author of a book. So when the Hall of Nations was demolished, its architect asked the court to order it rebuilt. The answer turned on a distinction the Copyright Act never quite makes explicit.
The case
In Raj Rewal v. Union of India, a suit sought a mandatory injunction against the Indian Trade Promotion Organisation (ITPO), and the Delhi High Court comprehensively rejected the claim that an author’s moral rights over a building take precedence over the owner’s right to destroy or modify it.
The Hall of Nations, designed by architect Raj Rewal with structural designer Mahendra Raj, stood in Pragati Maidan in New Delhi and was widely regarded as an icon of modernist Indian architecture. In 2016, ITPO proposed demolishing the complex to build an Integrated Exhibition-cum-Convention Centre. Despite the architect’s efforts to preserve it, the building was demolished.
He then sued, claiming the demolition derogated his special rights under Section 57 of the Copyright Act, and sought a mandatory injunction to reinstate the building to its original position.
What Section 57 protects
Section 57 protects an author’s right of paternity and right of integrity, making actionable the distortion, mutilation or modification of a work where established to be prejudicial to the author’s honour or reputation.
The architect’s argument was that demolition is the ultimate mutilation.
Why the claim failed
Two reasons, and the second is the more fundamental.
The statutory point. The court held that Section 57 cannot be read as giving an author a right to prevent the destruction of a work in its entirety. The provision addresses distortion, mutilation and modification — acts that leave a work in existence in an altered form, capable of being attributed to its author and of damaging his reputation. Total destruction leaves nothing to be misattributed. A building that no longer exists cannot misrepresent its architect.
The constitutional point. Allowing the claim would impose a restriction on the defendant’s right to deal with its property, guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution. An owner who cannot demolish a structure on their own land holds substantially less than ownership.
The court found no cause of action and dismissed the suit.
The gap it exposes
The outcome reflects a genuine lacuna in the Copyright Act concerning moral rights in architectural works. Buildings are unlike other copyright subject matter: they are simultaneously works of authorship and functional property belonging to somebody else, occupying land that has its own uses and value.
Other jurisdictions have addressed this directly. The US Visual Artists Rights Act gives limited protection to works of visual art incorporated into buildings, with notice and removal provisions allowing an artist an opportunity to salvage or document the work before alteration. India has nothing equivalent.
Until there is clear law, the author of an architectural work stands on unsafe ground in seeking to protect the integrity of what they built. The practical protection is contractual — provisions in the commissioning agreement addressing alteration, demolition, notice, and the right to record the work — negotiated at the point the architect has leverage, which is before the commission, not after the demolition.
A note on scope: this was a single judge decision and remains the leading Indian authority on the question. It concerns destruction, not alteration — a building modified in a way prejudicial to the architect’s reputation raises a different question that Section 57 addresses on its face.
The takeaways
- Section 57 covers distortion, mutilation and modification — not total destruction.
- Nothing survives to misattribute where a work is destroyed entirely.
- Article 300A protects the owner’s right to deal with its property.
- Contract is the practical protection for architects, negotiated up front.
Frequently asked questions
Can an architect prevent demolition of their building in India? No — the Delhi High Court held that Section 57 does not give an author a right to prevent destruction of a work in its entirety.
What does Section 57 protect? The rights of paternity and integrity, making actionable distortion, mutilation or modification of a work that is prejudicial to the author’s honour or reputation.
Why does destruction differ from modification? Because a destroyed work no longer exists to be misattributed to its author, whereas a distorted work continues to circulate in an altered form.
How can an architect protect the integrity of a building? Principally by contract — addressing alteration, demolition, notice and documentation rights in the commissioning agreement.
Useful official resources
- The Copyright Act, 1957
- Delhi High Court