Delhi High Court Directs Gautam Gambhir To Correct Mismatch In Defendant List In Personality Rights Suit

The Delhi High Court on Friday directed counsel for Indian cricket team head coach Gautam Gambhir to file a corrected memo of parties in his suit seeking protection of his personality rights, after noticing a discrepancy in the numbering and description of defendants in the court filings.

Gambhir has approached the court alleging misuse of his likeness/personality through deepfake videos and false news reports circulating online.

The matter was heard by Justice Jyoti Singh, who said the procedural error must be rectified before the Court could consider passing any interim order.

During the hearing, Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai for Gambhir argued that the suit concerned not only commercial rights but also his reputation and dignity.

“This is a question concerning my dignity also,” the counsel submitted, stating that Gambhir has served the country on the national stage for over two decades and presently holds the position of head coach of the Indian cricket team.

It was also submitted that his commercial value stands established through endorsements with major brands such as Uber, which could be affected by the circulation of misleading content.

The court was told that several deepfake videos had surfaced in which Gambhir's voice and face were allegedly manipulated to spread false claims, including statements suggesting that he had resigned after a poor performance or that he had assaulted a fellow player.

Counsel also referred to an instance where Gambhir's image was allegedly superimposed on that of Mahatma Gandhi, which the Court remarked appeared to be in “very poor taste”.

However, before considering the prayer for interim protection, a procedural issue was raised by the defendants regarding the memo of parties filed along with the suit. It was pointed out that the numbering of defendants in the body of the plaint did not match the numbering in the memo of parties.

In particular, the Court was informed that in paragraph 25 of the plaint, Meta Platforms was shown as defendant number 13, whereas in the memo of parties the same entity appeared under a different defendant number. Similar inconsistencies were stated to exist for other defendants as well, which could create difficulty in issuing summons.

Observing that the mismatch would create problems in passing orders and issuing notices, Justice Singh remarked that “it would have been a problem with the order” and that the memo of parties would have to be corrected before any directions could be issued.

The court recorded that during the hearing it noticed a “discrepancy in the body of the plaint and the memo of parties in describing the defendants” and allowed the plaintiff to file a fresh memo of parties in consonance with the plaint.

Granting time till Monday to place the corrected record on file, the court cautioned Gambir's legal team, “You will have to be careful before you file it.”

The matter is expected to be taken up again after the corrected memo of parties is filed