Delhi HC calls for sanity in personality-rights cases, says free speech under threat
“Assist me in bringing some sanity to this concept of personality. It is growing out of hand. Started small with good intentions, now we are sitting at 6,884 URLs. It can't be like that,” the court said, adding the solution could hit “at the very root of free speech.”A bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani was hearing actor Janhvi Kapoor’s plea seeking the removal of more than 6,000 URLs that she alleged violated her personality rights. The court questioned the broad approach being taken in such cases and how far a celebrity’s rights can extend over content posted online. The defendants in the case include Meta and Telegram, as well as operators of allegedly infringing fan pages.The court said it would not pass a blanket order covering all material placed before it, limiting relief to content that is clearly obscene or involves commercial exploitation. It also asked Kapoor’s lawyers to narrow their plea and categorise the URLs, rather than seeking an order covering thousands of links. “I am not inclined to grant any blanket orders in the name of personality rights,” the judge said. The matter will be heard next on 17 August.These judicial remarks come as personality-rights suits by actors, politicians, content creators, and corporate leaders multiply rapidly. However, the court’s stance in Janhvi Kapoor’s case marks a notable shift from previous personality-rights suits. In past cases involving figures such as Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Allu Arjun, and Shashi Tharoor, courts routinely granted dynamic injunctions to block new or mirror URLs. What sets Kapoor’s plea apart, and triggered the judicial pushback, is its sheer scale. Targeting over 6,000 URLs, it represents one of the largest takedown requests in a personality-rights case to date.Fan clubs in the spotlightDuring Tuesday's hearing, Kapoor’s lawyers argued several accounts were impersonating her and offering paid promotions, asserting fan pages shouldn't make money from a celebrity's persona. The court questioned whether that approach could end up covering ordinary fan activity, saying, “Fan club, you want me to stop all your fan clubs?”The judge also questioned whether personality rights could be used to stop uncomfortable or critical material from being published. “We see we've had cases where celebrities are trying to hide wrongdoing by saying personality rights, publicity rights, celebrity rights. How can a court allow that?”Nonetheless, the court said it would protect celebrities against clearly objectionable material and direct commercial exploitation. “What is inappropriate, what is lascivious, what is obscene etc., I will protect you, no question.”Discussing posts about relationships, the bench questioned whether such material could simply be labelled misleading or unauthorised. “People are discussing your relationship, they are discussing whether it is true, false, who will know? Why? How can I just block this?” The judge also described the term “misleading digital content” as a subjective phrase, questioning whether it could by itself justify an injunction.Addressing arguments that unconsented photos infringe rights, the court remarked, “Whose eyes are dirty? There are people whose eyes are dirty. What can one do? We are not the conscience keepers of the nation.”Mint’s queries emailed to IndiaLaw LLP, which represents Janhvi Kapoor, as well as Meta, Google, X and Telegram were yet to elicit a response at the time of publishing.Practical problemsMeanwhile, the sheer volume of flagged URLs presented a practical hurdle for social media platforms, with Meta’s legal counsel telling the court that manually reviewing thousands of links one by one was simply unfeasible. “Four thousand,
Discussion (0)