Delhi High Court Asks Patanjali's Acharya Balkrishna To Narrow Down Grievances In His Personality Rights Suit

Patanjali Ayurved co-founder and Managing Director Acharya Balkrishna has moved the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights against alleged deepfakes, misleading videos, and online misinformation.

The court on Monday expressed reservations over the wide scope of the takedown relief sought.

During the hearing, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the prayers in the suit appeared overly broad and cautioned that a public figure must be prepared to face criticism, satire, and commentary along with public praise.

Counsel for Balkrishna submitted that the suit was necessary because the plaintiff commands a “wide and diverse following across the country,” including people from rural backgrounds who may lack the digital awareness needed to distinguish genuine content from manipulated material.

Referring to the pleadings, counsel argued:

“A substantial segment comprises persons from rural regions, including those with limited formal education. Such individuals, by reason of their socioeconomic and educational background, may not possess the technical awareness or digital literacy necessary to distinguish between authentic content and manipulated media, including deepfakes, fabricated videos, or artificial voiceovers. It is respectfully submitted that the circulation of such deceptive and technologically manipulated content poses a grave risk of misleading the plaintiff's followers, who may readily accept the same as genuine. The potential for confusion, misrepresentation, and reputational harm is therefore significantly heightened."

The court, however, questioned the inclusion of links to news reports while seeking takedown orders. The bench noted that the list of URLs placed on record included articles from established media houses such as India Today, The Economic Times and The Times of India, which were not parties to the suit.

Justice Gedela asked whether the Court could direct the removal of news reports without hearing the publishers.

“Suppose it is authentic news they are giving… can we direct taking them down without their presence behind their backs?”

The Court further remarked that it could not pass a blanket direction to remove content from unidentified parties.

“You have made a very omnibus kind of allegation… We cannot pass any order omnibus saying that take down. We can't.”

During the hearing, the court also referred to the inclusion of caricatures and satirical videos in the suit, observing that public figures cannot expect to avoid criticism altogether.

“If you want to be a public figure, please be ready for brickbats too. People will make fun. You can't stop them, unless it is disparaging or humiliating.”

The court also criticised the length and drafting of the plaint, noting that the filing ran into about 150 pages and appeared to contain unnecessary material.

“This is what happens when you make a suit of 150 pages… Please concise it to a level where it becomes easy.”

Faced with the court's concerns, Balkrishna's counsel clarified that the plaintiff was not seeking removal of reports relating to judicial proceedings and made a statement in Court:

“I can straight away make a statement that all the links...Anything connected to the Supreme Court judgment need not be taken down.”

Accepting the submission, the court directed the plaintiff to reconsider the list of allegedly offending links and return with a narrowed set of grievances identifying specific content that allegedly infringes personality rights.

“Just narrow it down… have a table ready as to which are the ones which are really hurting you. That we can still consider.”

The matter was adjourned to enable the plaintiff to take instructions and place a more specific list before the court. It will be heard again tomorrow.