Delhi HC Orders Platforms to Safeguard Salman Khan's Personality Rights

In a significant ruling for the intersection of intellectual property and digital media, the Delhi High Court has directed social media intermediaries and e-commerce platforms to treat Bollywood superstar Salman Khan's lawsuit as a formal complaint under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. The court's order, passed on December 11, mandates these platforms to act swiftly—within three days—to remove unauthorized uses of Khan's image, voice, and likeness, particularly in merchandise sales. This interim directive not only bars the exploitation of Khan's persona without consent but also sets a procedural precedent for future personality rights disputes, emphasizing pre-litigation engagement with online platforms.

The decision underscores the evolving jurisprudence on personality rights in India, where courts are increasingly recognizing the commercial value of a celebrity's identity in the digital age. As platforms become primary conduits for unauthorized commercial exploitation, this ruling reinforces the accountability of intermediaries under the IT Rules, potentially streamlining enforcement while cautioning against direct judicial intervention without exhausting administrative remedies.

Background of the Dispute

Salman Khan, one of Bollywood's most bankable stars with a global fanbase, filed suit (CS(COMM)-1322/2025) against multiple defendants, including unnamed "John Does" representing unidentified entities. The plaint alleges the unauthorized commercial use of his persona—encompassing his image, voice, and distinctive traits—for merchandise and endorsements without permission. Such misuse, Khan contends, dilutes his brand value and infringes on his exclusive rights to control commercial appropriations of his identity.

This case arrives amid a surge in similar actions by public figures seeking to curb the rampant online commodification of their likenesses. The court, presided over by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, drew parallels to recent precedents, including suits by Telugu actor Junior NTR (filed on December 8) and Bollywood actor Ajay Devgn. In the Junior NTR matter, Justice Arora had similarly directed platforms to process the suit as a complaint under the IT Rules. For Ajay Devgn, the court had clarified that plaintiffs must first approach intermediaries before seeking judicial relief, a procedural safeguard aimed at efficient dispute resolution.

During the hearing, Justice Arora orally remarked to Khan's counsel, senior advocate Sandeep Sethi: "Your briefing counsel must be aware of an order I passed in another suit wrt party approaching the social media platforms and then coming to court. Are you not aware of it? Please look at Ajay Devgn matter." This exchange highlights the court's intent to standardize procedures, preventing a flood of litigation by mandating initial platform-level interventions.

The order explicitly directs defendants—identified as social media and e-commerce entities—to "treat the plaint as a complaint and to take steps in accordance with [IT] Rules within three days." It further stipulates that any reservations regarding specific links must be communicated to the plaintiff. Notably, one account was flagged for infringing Khan's registered trademark "Being in Touch," prompting the court to instruct the defendant to consider pleaded IP rights in its actions.

Court Proceedings and Interim Relief

The hearing revealed a bifurcated approach to relief. For social media intermediaries, the court adopted a complaint-based mechanism under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, read with the 2021 Rules. These rules require platforms to acknowledge complaints, remove offending content expeditiously, and preserve records for investigations, thereby balancing user rights with intermediary safe harbor protections.

However, for non-intermediary defendants—such as direct sellers of unauthorized merchandise—the court promised a separate interim order. Responding to Sethi's plea, Justice Arora stated orally that it would issue a "stay order qua others," pending details on additional defendants like e-marketplaces. The dictated order reads: "Counsel for plaintiff states that similar directions be issued to defendant 2,3,4,6 to treat the plaint as a complaint to them as per the IT Rules 2021. Counsels for the said defendants accept notice."

This dual strategy addresses the fragmented nature of digital infringements: intermediaries handle content dissemination, while direct actors face injunctive bars. The inclusion of John Doe orders extends protection against unknown perpetrators, a common tool in IP suits to capture elusive online violators.

Khan was represented by a formidable team, including Sandeep Sethi, Nizam Pasha, Parag Khandhar, and others, underscoring the high stakes involved. The actor's grievance stems from the proliferation of deepfakes, morphed images, and merchandise exploiting his fame, a trend exacerbated by AI tools and e-commerce accessibility.

Legal Framework and Precedents

At its core, this ruling invokes the right to publicity—a facet of personality rights rooted in Article 21 (right to privacy and dignity) of the Indian Constitution, alongside common law principles of passing off and trademark dilution. Indian courts have progressively expanded these protections beyond traditional IP, recognizing persona as a proprietary interest. The landmark case of R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) affirmed publicity rights, while recent Delhi High Court decisions have operationalized them in digital contexts.

Justice Arora's recent rulings exemplify this trend. In protecting journalist Sudhir Chaudhary, the court addressed AI-generated misleading videos, directing platforms to curb deepfake dissemination. Similarly, podcaster Raj Shamani secured a John Doe order against unauthorized use of his public image. Coordinate benches have shielded figures like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Nagarjuna, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, and Karan Johar, often invoking the IT Rules for enforcement.

The 2021 IT Rules mark a pivotal shift, imposing due diligence on intermediaries to prevent hosting infringing content. Rule 3(1)(b) mandates removal of unlawful information upon actual knowledge, while Rule 4 requires grievance mechanisms. By treating plaints as complaints, the court leverages this framework to expedite takedowns, reducing the burden on judicial resources.

In the Ajay Devgn precedent, the court mandated pre-suit protests to platforms, a directive echoed here: "What we will do is, as per second order, we will direct you to approach social media intermediaries and after one week, if they object, I will pass a composite order." This procedural evolution promotes self-regulation, aligning with global standards like the EU's Digital Services Act.

Implications for Legal Practice

For legal practitioners in IP and media law, this order signals a maturing ecosystem for personality rights enforcement. It establishes a hybrid model: administrative compliance via platforms for intermediaries, supplemented by judicial stays for recalcitrant actors. This could deter unauthorized uses proactively, as platforms risk safe harbor loss for non-compliance.

However, challenges persist. The three-day timeline tests platforms' content moderation capacities, especially for global entities like Meta or Amazon India. Plaintiffs must furnish precise details—links, handles—to enable targeted actions, else face delays. Moreover, the John Doe mechanism, while expansive, invites abuse if not cabined by specificity, potentially leading to overbroad injunctions.

Broader impacts ripple through the justice system. By referencing the Junior NTR suit, the court fosters consistency across benches, aiding precedent-building. For celebrities, it affirms persona as an asset warranting robust protection, influencing endorsement contracts and digital rights management. Non-celebrities, like influencers or journalists, may draw parallels, expanding applicability to personal branding.

Critically, the ruling navigates free speech tensions. While personality rights prevent commercial hijacking, courts must ensure takedown orders do not stifle parody or fair use. Justice Arora's balanced approach—requiring platforms to flag reservations—preserves this equilibrium.

In the context of AI proliferation, this decision foreshadows stricter scrutiny of synthetic media. As tools like deepfakes blur authenticity, integrating personality rights with emerging tech regulations (e.g., proposed AI guidelines) will be crucial. Legal scholars anticipate this could catalyze legislative amendments to the Copyright Act, 1957, or IT Act, embedding publicity rights explicitly.

Potential Broader Impacts

The Salman Khan order may catalyze a procedural template for digital IP disputes, reducing court backlogs. E-commerce platforms, now on notice, might enhance AI-driven monitoring for trademarked personas, benefiting rights holders. Yet, it raises equity concerns: access to swift justice favors high-profile litigants with resources for counsel like Sethi.

Internationally, it aligns India with jurisdictions like the US (right of publicity under state laws) and EU (GDPR's image rights), positioning Delhi as a hub for cross-border enforcement. For the legal community, it underscores the need for interdisciplinary expertise—blending IP, tech, and constitutional law.

As the suit progresses, further orders on non-intermediaries could yield comprehensive guidelines. Until then, this ruling fortifies the digital ramparts around personal identity, reminding the online world that fame is not free for the taking.

In sum, the Delhi High Court's directive is a timely assertion of personality rights in the algorithmic era. It not only shields Salman Khan's brand but also charts a course for equitable digital commerce, where consent reigns over exploitation.