Delhi High Court Orders Takedown Of Allegedly Disparaging Content In Actor Tabu's Personality Rights Suit

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed intermediaries to take down specified online URLs hosting content that actor Tabu alleged was defamatory, pornographic, or otherwise violative of her personality rights.

The court also indicated that it would appoint an amicus curiae to examine broader issues arising in such cases.

Justice Jyoti Singh, hearing the matter with Senior Advocate Swati Sukumar appearing for Tabu, considered content identified by the actor across social media platforms, e-commerce listings and websites hosting allegedly explicit or denigrating material, and directed several intermediaries to take it down.

A substantial part of the hearing concerned content drawn from Tabu's films. The actor's counsel argued that certain clips had been slowed down or re-titled in a manner that sexualised specific scenes and were being promoted through search terms that objectified the actor.

Sukumar submitted that the volume and nature of the content, and the manner in which it continued to reappear through new accounts and posts, went beyond an ordinary infringement dispute. "This is not any actress. My name is there," she told the Court, arguing that the search terms used to drive traffic to the content amounted to targeted objectification.

During the hearing, counsel for one of the platforms referred to another personality rights matter listed the same day, submitting that it involved an attempt to seek removal of allegedly defamatory content through a personality rights suit.

The Court observed that the issues raised extended beyond the present case.

Referring to earlier coordinate Bench decisions requiring plaintiffs to first report content to platforms before approaching the Court, Justice Singh observed that a different approach may be required in cases involving particularly serious content.

"You have no idea what those pornographic videos were... they were as bad as you could get it. If one was to leave it to them... and take, say, about two or three weeks to go by, that kind of content [would have already spread]," the court orally observed.

Counsel appearing for the platforms referred to existing safeguards, including automated detection systems, in-app grievance mechanisms, the grievance redressal process under the IT Rules and guidelines framed by the Madras High Court relating to non-consensual images.

The court acknowledged those mechanisms but observed that the larger issue was preventing such content from appearing online in the first place.

"The problem does not lie in policy framing or their implementation. The problem lies [in] how to have a mechanism where they can be nipped in the bud. They just do not go online," Justice Singh remarked.

The Court also indicated that it would appoint an amicus curiae to assist on the broader legal issues.

"I will be appointing an amicus. Both sides... maybe we can say that some of these ancillary issues arise, so they can also be framed, and then we will go into it slowly, one by one," the Court said, asking counsel to assist the process as officers of the Court.

The court indicated that the exercise would also consider framing a standard operating procedure for dealing with such disputes.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on December 7.