Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of 'Defamatory, Obscene' Online Content Targeting Acharya Balkrishna

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday passed an interim order directing removal of specific online content targeting Patanjali Ayurved Co-Founder Acharya Balkrishna after observing that several links appeared to be “defamatory,” “obscene,” and “vulgar” and prima facie infringed his personality rights.

During today's hearing, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela examined an abridged 18-page compilation of URLs submitted by the plaintiff and clarified that while satire and parody are protected forms of speech, certain material placed before the Court appeared to cross the permissible limit.

The proceedings began after counsel for Balkrishna submitted a revised note and a narrowed compilation of links in response to the court's earlier query that the original suit was overly broad. Referring to the legal position on free speech, counsel submitted:

“There can be no doubt that free speech in respect of a well-known person is protected in the form of right to information, news, satire, parody that is authentic, and also genuine criticism. However, when the same process aligns and results in tarnishment, blackening or jeopardizes the individual's personality or attributes associated with the said individual, it would be illegal.”

Pointing to the table of URLs, the plaintiff's side highlighted specific posts that allegedly mocked Balkrishna by comparing him to fictional characters or linking him to illegal activities. Referring to one meme, counsel argued:

“The comparison is… disparaging the plaintiff's personality and mocking the plaintiff by imputing that the plaintiff is dyslexic, with the intent to ridicule the plaintiff and, resultantly, gain viewership.”

The Court was also shown posts allegedly equating the plaintiff with a drug cartel and another comparing him with a footballer known for biting opponents during matches, which counsel described as “distasteful” and beyond permissible criticism.

A significant part of the argument concerned commercial use of Balkrishna's image. Showing screenshots of platforms hosting digital stickers, counsel submitted:

“This is all clear monetization for sale because… this platform is Stickerly… there are stickers for sale with my image. Now, I don't want that.”

However, opposing a blanket takedown, counsel appearing for Google LLC argued that many of the posts were part of public discourse, including memes referring to the Coronil controversy, and warned:

“If we start taking action against these, my lord, the public discourse will be robbed of all humor… personality rights should never step into parody, satire, caricature, lampooning.”

Counsel for Meta Platforms also submitted that several links appeared to be parody and that the Court must keep in mind the fundamental right to free speech before ordering removal.

Justice Gedela noted that satire, which merely amuses, may not be objectionable.

“If it brings a smile, it may not necessarily be something which is derogatory.”

However, after reviewing the 18-page compilation, the Court recorded that some links went beyond humor:

“There are indeed certain links and websites… which seem to be derogatory, definitely, and disparaging… and appear to be violating the personality rights of the plaintiff.”

The court further observed:

“The nature of such links do not indicate that they are mere parody or lampooning and appear to border on infringement of the personality rights of the plaintiff.”

Accordingly, the court directed removal of the specific URLs listed in the abridged compilation, clarifying that the relief at this stage would be confined only to those links.

With respect to third-party websites, Google informed the Court that it could not remove the content itself but could de-index the links, submitting that it “would de-index the specific URLs that are mentioned there,” which the Court recorded in its order.

The Court also permitted the plaintiff to place the refined index and compilation on affidavit.