Delhi High Court Orders Removal of Obscene Content on Janhvi Kapoor but Preserves Fan Pages
The Delhi High Court has issued an order instructing the removal of explicit online content related to actress Janhvi Kapoor. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani delivered this interim order following a legal suit filed by Kapoor, who seeks to protect her personality rights. The Court noted that some of the requests in the lawsuit were too broad and instructed Kapoor’s legal team to provide a detailed list of webpages featuring “ex facie pornographic, obscene, prurient, lascivious” content that improperly exploits her personality rights for commercial benefits.
The Court expressed its intention to provide relief in specific categories, stating, “I am inclined to give you relief in these categories.” Kapoor’s legal action seeks the removal of over 5,000 webpages, including social media content with AI-generated pornographic material, impersonating accounts, and unauthorized use of her name for commercial purposes without her consent. However, the Court was reluctant to order the removal of fan pages, emphasizing the importance of freedom of expression in the digital age.
Justice Bhambhani remarked, “We are not the conscience keepers of the nation. Solution may be worse than the problem. It was at the very root of free speech. You may not be misusing restraint order but there may be others who will…Fan pages may be lampooning, adulatory of your work, critical of your work. You don’t want fans? It is the digital world. No comments, no URLs…You will find yourself living in a cave.”
The Court also declined to issue a dynamic injunction against fan pages, adding, “They should just be genuflecting in front of you? Stand and touch my feet? How can you shut down all fan clubs? You are a public personality. Who is immune these days? Everyone who is in public domain is being abused left, right and centre.”
On the issue of copyright versus personality rights, the Court clarified that the right to sell a copyrighted work belongs to the copyright owner. “I have a photo and I have a right to sell it, how is it monetising you? Somebody writes a book so he can’t sell it? Right to sell a copyrighted work is the copyright owners right. I am a potter, I make a mug, I put your likeness on it, I paint you or photograph you and sell it. Who owns the copyright then? Right of poster will be with the person who took the photograph. Is right to sell not part of it?” questioned the Court.
More Read
Advocate Varun Pathak, representing Meta, opposed the petition, arguing that checking all 5,000 links identified in the lawsuit is impractical. “It is not prohibited by law to not have AI generated pictures. This people also have a right to livelihood. They want dynamic injunction of cleaning up internet,” he stated. The Court cautioned Meta to adhere to its role as an intermediary, stating, “I urge you to not overstep your role. Intermediaries have no role, that itself would imply you have more interest.”
Justice Bhambhani concluded by asking the counsel to aid in defining the parameters of personality rights suits. “I would want you to assist me to bring some sanity in the concept of personality rights. It started as something small, done with good intentions. It is going out of hand.” The next hearing is scheduled for August 17. Janhvi Kapoor is represented by Advocates Asav Rajan Arora and Abha Shah from IndiaLaw LLP.
