Back
Appoints in Janhvi Kapoor's Suit
The has taken a significant step in the evolving landscape of by appointing an to assist in the suit filed by Bollywood actor Janhvi Kapoor. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, presiding over the matter, appointed as , “considering the importance of the issues involved.” The court also noted that , already assisting in a parallel suit filed by actor Vivek Oberoi, will continue in that capacity. The development marks a judicial effort to bring to a rapidly expanding area of law, where celebrities are increasingly seeking broad injunctions to protect their name, image, and likeness from unauthorized use online.
Background: The Surge in Litigation
Over the past few years, Indian courts have witnessed a sharp rise in claims, driven by the proliferation of digital content, social media, and AI-generated media. Celebrities, influencers, and public figures have approached courts seeking to prevent the misuse of their persona. However, the breadth of these prayers has raised concerns among judges about potential overreach—especially when prayers seek to block fan pages, satire, or legitimate commentary. In Kapoor's case, the initial suit cited nearly 6,884 URLs allegedly infringing her . In August, Justice Bhambhani declined to pass a , remarking that such “could be misused” and that “it is going out of hand.” Instead, the court confined interim protection to three narrow categories: content that is obscene or pornographic, content directly monetising her persona, and content using her name and likeness to sell merchandise. The larger questions—including the treatment of fan pages and the outer limits of protection—were left for fuller argument.
Key Developments: Appointment of Amici and Categorization of URLs
During the latest hearing, Kapoor's counsel, of , informed the court that the 6,884 URLs had been categorised as directed. Notably, 1,400 URLs were identified as containing sexually vulgar or pornographic content. The counsel urged the court to consider an early for such explicit material. The court agreed to take up the plea on , within the current month, signalling sensitivity to the urgency of removing pornographic content.
Justice Bhambhani also granted Advocate Alva liberty to file his note of submissions without serving it on other parties. The court fixed a separate date in October to hear broader issues concerning , particularly where prayers are “over-broad” and touch upon defamation or satire. This bifurcated approach—dealing with egregious content first and reserving doctrinal questions for later—reflects a pragmatic judicial strategy.
Legal Analysis: Balancing Rights and Overbreadth
The Kapoor and Oberoi cases highlight a critical tension in jurisprudence. On one hand, celebrities have a legitimate interest in controlling the commercial exploitation of their identity. On the other, the , including the right to parody, critique, and create fan content, must be safeguarded. The court's earlier refusal to grant a was rooted in the concern that such orders could be weaponised against legitimate speech. The appointment of amici curiae—especially an academic and practitioner like Gautam Bhatia, known for his scholarship on constitutional law—suggests that the court intends to develop a principled framework rather than decide on an basis.
The categorization of URLs into three tiers is a pragmatic solution: it allows immediate action against clearly harmful content (pornographic, directly monetising, or using likeness for merchandise) while reserving more complex issues for deliberation. This approach mirrors the common in other jurisdictions, such as the US right of publicity cases. The court’s emphasis on “” indicates a desire to set boundaries that prevent from becoming a tool to suppress criticism or non-commercial fan activity.
In Oberoi's case, a coordinate bench had earlier granted a in February, restraining unauthorized use of the actor’s name, image, voice, and other distinctive attributes, including through AI-generated content. The amicus appointment in that matter will help the court examine whether such sweeping protection is justified in the digital age.
Impact on Legal Practice
For intellectual property practitioners, these developments signal a shift towards more nuanced judicial scrutiny of claims. Lawyers advising celebrity clients must now anticipate that courts will demand precise categorization of infringing content and may refuse blanket orders unless specific harm is demonstrated. The appointment of amici also opens the door for expert input on complex issues such as the intersection of with AI, deepfakes, and free speech.
Moreover, the case will likely influence how social media platforms respond to take-down requests. The court’s narrow interim protection may encourage platforms to adopt more calibrated policies, rather than over-removing content to avoid liability. For defendants—often anonymous John Does operating fan accounts or comment pages—the decision provides some reassurance that legitimate expression will not be automatically stifled.
Conclusion
The ’s measured approach in the Janhvi Kapoor suit reflects a maturing understanding of in the digital era. By appointing amici curiae, the court is not merely resolving a dispute between two parties but is laying the groundwork for a coherent legal framework. The hearing will focus on the urgent take-down of pornographic content, while October’s hearing will tackle the broader theoretical questions. As these cases progress, they will likely become landmark decisions in Indian intellectual property law, defining the contours of for years to come.
