NEW DELHI — As the digital landscape continues to outpace traditional legal frameworks, the Delhi High Court is undertaking a landmark examination of personality rights, privacy, and free expression. Presiding over a batch of high-profile suits, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani has drawn a firm line regarding the limits of legal protection for public figures, asserting unequivocally that personality rights cannot be weaponized to suppress accountability or whitewash public controversies.
The court’s observations came during ongoing hearings that club together lawsuits filed by prominent Bollywood actors Janhvi Kapoor and Vivek Oberoi, alongside Aaradhya Bachchan. The legal proceedings aim to establish a definitive judicial scope for personality and publicity rights in India, addressing an era defined by deepfakes, ubiquitous social media, and the monetization of celebrity identities.
Main Facts: Striking a Balance Between Commercial Protection and Accountability
The core of the legal debate centers on what personality rights entail, who holds them, and how far they stretch into the public domain. The proceedings highlight a growing tension between a celebrity’s right to control their commercial image—such as preventing unauthorized merchandise, deepfakes, and artificial intelligence (AI) exploitation—and the public’s right to free speech, news reporting, and critical discourse.
Justice Bhambhani’s remarks cut straight to the heart of accountability. Emphasizing that public figures cannot shield themselves from criticism under the guise of privacy or personality rights, the judge remarked, "Personality rights are being misused to cover up wrongdoing. There is no confidentiality about wrongdoing. There is no privacy about wrongdoing."
The bench used compelling hypotheticals to underscore its stance. Challenging the absolute nature of these claims, Justice Bhambhani questioned whether a celebrity or public figure could invoke personality rights to evade public scrutiny after a fall from grace. Comparing a hypothetical financial criminal—such as an individual under investigation for a multi-thousand-crore bank fraud attempting to muzzle the press—to a disgraced celebrity, the court emphasized that infamy cannot be legally sanitized through copyright or personality infringement suits.
According to the bench, public figures inherently require "a thicker skin." For instance, if a celebrity’s private conversation is inadvertently overheard in a public setting, they cannot claim the same degree of legal grievance as an ordinary private citizen, given the intense public interest surrounding public personalities.
Chronology and Legal Arguments: From Amici Curiae to Janhvi Kapoor’s Defense
The judicial timeline leading up to the current hearings reflects the urgency and complexity of the matter. Earlier in the week, two appointed amici curiae—independent legal experts assisting the court—concluded their initial submissions, laying the groundwork for the judiciary to define the contours of these uncodified rights.
On October 9, the spotlight shifted to Advocate Asav Rajan, representing actor Janhvi Kapoor. Rajan’s arguments spanned multiple facets of digital privacy, public availability, and the mechanical realities of modern litigation. The hearings are scheduled to resume on October 12 at 3:30 PM for the continuation of Rajan’s submissions.
Do Personality Rights Belong Exclusively to Celebrities?
A foundational argument raised by Rajan was that personality rights are universal human attributes, not exclusive luxuries reserved for the rich and famous. Pointing out that existing judicial precedents predominantly utilize terms like "individual" and "person" rather than "celebrity," Rajan argued that fame merely changes the economic dimension of a violation, not the foundational existence of the right itself.
"Fame affects only the quantum of commercial harm, not the existence of the right," Rajan submitted before the court.
Addressing a query from Justice Bhambhani regarding whether individuals operating outside the law—such as gangsters—could claim personality rights, Rajan conceded that while the legal right technically exists for every human being, courts retain the discretionary power to deny relief. A criminal reputation, he reasoned, does not constitute legal "goodwill" worthy of judicial protection.
The counsel explained that celebrities file the vast majority of personality rights lawsuits simply because they possess a "practical evidentiary advantage." Proving commercial loss is straightforward for stars who can present clear metrics, such as lucrative endorsement contracts, massive social media follower counts, and box-office earnings.
Supporting Data and Legal Principles: Consent, Public Domain, and AI
A major portion of the legal discourse focused on the myth that uploading content to the public sphere strips an individual of all legal protections regarding its reuse.
The "Sphere-Specific" Nature of Consent
Rajan strongly argued against the notion that a photo posted publicly on social media becomes open-source material for anyone to exploit. Consent, he argued, is "very sphere-specific." A photograph shared by an individual for one particular context or purpose does not automatically grant a blanket license for third parties to repurpose it elsewhere. Public availability merely narrows the available legal defenses for a reuser; it does not erase the underlying right of identity control.
To reinforce this, Rajan invoked the landmark Supreme Court ruling in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, which established that an individual does not surrender their fundamental right to privacy merely by stepping into a public place.
Navigating AI, Deepfakes, and Non-Consensual Content
With generative artificial intelligence presenting unprecedented challenges to digital security, the arguments delved heavily into the realm of morphed imagery and AI-generated fabrications.
Rajan cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, noting that while the judgment permits the publication of true public records, it does not legitimize fabricated or fraudulent content. Furthermore, because the Rajagopal ruling strictly bars the publication of names and identities of sexual assault victims, Rajan argued that this protective shield should naturally extend to individuals targeted by non-consensual sexual deepfakes and AI-generated pornography.
On the standard of judging obscene AI content, Rajan urged the court to avoid applying the traditional, broad obscenity tests—such as the standard set in the Aveek Sarkar case, which evaluates content based on shifting community standards—when the victim is actively complaining. Non-consensual sexualized AI content, he argued, warrants immediate takedown orders without the burden of prolonged community-standard evaluations.
Official Responses and Stakeholder Dynamics: The Fan Page Dilemma
The proliferation of celebrity fan clubs and fan pages has become a contentious battleground. While fan pages often serve as marketing engines for actors and musicians, they frequently blur the lines between digital appreciation and copyright infringement.
Clarifying Kapoor’s legal posture, Rajan stated that her lawsuits do not seek to suppress legitimate criticism. Instead, Kapoor has carefully tailored her claims to target unauthorized commercial exploitation, AI-generated fabrications, merchandise manufacturing, and defamatory deepfakes.
Regarding fan pages specifically, Rajan noted that many fan clubs technically operate in a legal gray area if they merely re-upload copyrighted celebrity images wholesale. While certain limited uses may find shelter under the copyright doctrine of "fair dealing," a legitimate fan page must adhere to strict guidelines:
- It must maintain a laudatory tone.
- It must prominently carry a clear disclaimer.
- It must strictly avoid commercial monetization.
- It must refrain from hosting obscene, morphed, or AI-fabricated content.
"The fan page does not give a blanket permission to anyone to post anything," Rajan emphasized, pointing out that the specific fan pages challenged in Kapoor’s suit had crossed ethical and legal boundaries by monetizing her likeness and circulating explicit or altered media.
Implications: Defining the Future of Privacy and Press Freedom in India
The Delhi High Court’s ongoing deliberations carry sweeping implications for the Indian legal ecosystem, media organizations, internet intermediaries, and digital creators.
- Redefining Journalistic Boundaries vs. Privacy Breaches: During the hearings, Justice Bhambhani probed where the legal threshold lies between legitimate reporting and intrusions into privacy. Using the contrast of a celebrity photographed holding a book upside down at a public launch event versus a private photograph of two individuals at a restaurant, the court sought clear parameters. Rajan conceded that while the former constitutes standard news reporting, and a plain photo at a dinner can be benign, appending unverified rumors—such as fabricating claims of secret romantic affairs or prying into confidential health and personal relationships—crosses firmly into an actionable privacy violation.
- A Check on Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs): By signaling that personality rights cannot be used to cover up wrongdoing or suppress valid criticism, the court is laying down a robust defense against potential judicial overreach by powerful figures trying to silence whistleblowers or journalists.
- Legal Clarity on AI and Digital Identity: As the courts move toward a definitive ruling on personality rights, the resulting framework will likely serve as a foundational benchmark for regulating AI technologies, deepfakes, and the commercialization of human identity in India’s rapidly expanding digital economy.
As arguments resume on October 12, all eyes remain fixed on the Delhi High Court as it navigates the delicate intersection of celebrity autonomy, digital-age technology, and the public’s unalienable right to truth and free expression.
