Delhi High Court Grants Jahnvi Kapoor Relief Against Obscene Content, Commercial Misuse Of Persona

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday declined to grant a blanket injunction sought by actor Jahnvi Kapoor against 6,884 URLs that she claimed infringed her personality rights.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani indicated that interim relief could be considered for three categories of content. These were content that is ex facie obscene or pornographic, content that directly monetises Kapoor's personality rights, and content using her name and likeness to promote the sale of merchandise or services.

Kapoor had filed the suit against a string of unknown defendants, Meta, AI chatbot platforms, e-commerce websites, a domain name registrar and government authorities. She sought removal of impersonating social media accounts, AI-generated images, unauthorised merchandise and allegedly exploitative fan pages.

The list of URLs, her counsel told the court, had started small but eventually reached thousands.

Kapoor argued that even where a photograph was clicked by a third party, its commercial use without her consent amounted to exploitation of her persona. She argued that the issue was not merely one of copyright.

On fan pages, Kapoor's counsel said several accounts openly solicited paid promotions while posting obscene or zoomed-in images. Counsel also alleged that Meta runs advertising campaigns on pages that gain sufficient traction, resulting in commercial exploitation of such pages.

Counsel for Meta opposing a blanket order argued that fan pages could involve satire, criticism or admiration. It was also argued that such pages could be protected by free speech considerations and that their operators could have livelihood interests, particularly where they identified themselves as fan pages rather than impersonating Kapoor.

Counsel also referred to an earlier order involving actor-politician Pawan Kalyan. It was argued that thousands of URLs had been clubbed together without individual scrutiny and that some contained innocuous pictures.

The court questioned the breadth and categorisation of the claim. Justice Bhambhani observed, "I do not incline to grant any blanket orders in the name of personality rights."

The judge said such orders could be misused. He referred to cases where celebrities had allegedly tried to hide wrongdoing by invoking "personality rights publicity rights celebrity rights."

On the word "misleading" used in the pleadings, Justice Bhambhani remarked, "Misleading is a very, very value-loaded word. It's a very subjective... phrase. I can't injunct this."

The court also questioned the number of URLs placed before it. "It is going out of hand. Started with something small, done with all good intentions. Now we are sitting at 6884 URLs. It can't be like that," the judge observed.

On fan pages, the court declined to shut them down wholesale. The judge noted that such pages could involve satire, lampooning, criticism or admiration.

At the same time, the court indicated that inappropriate and obscene content could not be allowed to remain. The question was where the line should be drawn between legitimate fan activity and unlawful exploitation of a celebrity's persona.

The court said it was inclined to grant relief in three categories of content. These were ex facie obscene or pornographic material, content directly monetising Kapoor's personality rights, and content using her name and likeness to promote the sale of merchandise or services.

However, the court said it cannot pass a blanket order covering these categories at that stage. He directed Kapoor's counsel to provide a tabulated list identifying the relevant URLs and the defendants connected with each URL.

The court separately dealt with the first 573 URLs containing allegedly pornographic or obscene material. The judge directed the government authorities concerned to issue the requisite notifications immediately for removal of the links.

The court said the remaining material would require further argument and scrutiny. It specifically declined to injunct content merely because it had been described as "misleading."

Kapoor's counsel also argued that photographs taken by third parties could still be commercially exploited in a manner that infringed her personality rights. The judge questioned how such claims would interact with the copyright held by the person who took the photograph.

The court also examined Kapoor's challenge to the sale of merchandise bearing her photographs. Her counsel argued that such commercial use exploited her persona and could create an impression of an association between Kapoor and the brand selling the merchandise.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on August 17.

India Law through its partners Asav Rajan and Abha Shah represented the Petitioner.