Back
Declines Blanket Order in Jahnvi Kapoor Case, Allows Targeted Relief
The on Tuesday refused to grant a sought by actor Jahnvi Kapoor against 6,884 URLs allegedly infringing her , but indicated that could be considered for three specific categories of content. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, presiding over the matter, observed that a blanket order would be prone to misuse and declined to issue any sweeping directive in the name of . The court, however, directed the removal of the first 573 URLs containing obscene or pornographic material and asked Kapoor's counsel to provide a tabulated list of the remaining URLs for further scrutiny.
The case, which pits a celebrity's right to control her persona against and commercial interests, raises critical questions about the scope of in the digital age. Kapoor had sued unknown defendants, , AI chatbot platforms, e-commerce websites, a domain name registrar, and government authorities, seeking removal of impersonating social media accounts, AI-generated images, unauthorised merchandise, and allegedly exploitative fan pages. Her counsel argued that even photographs taken by third parties, when used commercially without consent, amount to exploitation of her persona, going beyond mere copyright concerns.
The Court's Reluctance to Grant Blanket Relief
Justice Bhambhani was explicit in his hesitation to issue a broad injunction.
"I do not incline to grant any blanket orders in the name of
,"
he stated, adding that such orders could be misused. He referred to instances where celebrities had allegedly attempted to hide wrongdoing by invoking
"
."
The court also questioned the sheer volume of URLs, observing,
"It is going out of hand. Started with something small, done with all good intentions. Now we are sitting at 6884 URLs. It can't be like that."
The judge further expressed concern over the use of the word "misleading" in the pleadings, remarking,
"Misleading is a very, very value-loaded word. It's a very subjective... phrase. I can't injunct this."
This highlights the court's wariness of subjective terms that could lead to overbroad enforcement.
Three Categories for Targeted Relief
Despite declining a blanket order, the court indicated it was inclined to grant relief in three distinct categories of content: (1) content that is obscene or pornographic, (2) content that directly monetises Kapoor's , and (3) content using her name and likeness to promote the sale of merchandise or services. These categories provide a framework for balancing the celebrity's rights against legitimate and fan activity.
The court separately dealt with the first 573 URLs, which allegedly contained pornographic or obscene material, and directed the relevant government authorities to issue notifications for their immediate removal. For the remaining URLs, the court required a tabulated list identifying each URL and the corresponding defendant, ensuring individual scrutiny rather than a blanket takedown.
Fan Pages and Concerns
A significant portion of the hearing centered on fan pages. Kapoor's counsel alleged that several accounts openly solicited paid promotions while posting obscene or zoomed-in images, and that runs advertising campaigns on pages that gain traction, leading to . However, 's counsel opposed a blanket order, arguing that fan pages could involve satire, criticism, or admiration, and that their operators might have livelihood interests, particularly when they identify themselves as fan pages rather than impersonating Kapoor.
The court acknowledged these concerns, noting that fan pages could involve
"satire, lampooning, criticism or admiration."
It declined to shut them down wholesale, instead emphasizing the need to draw a line between legitimate fan activity and unlawful exploitation of a celebrity's persona. This reflects a nuanced approach that respects
while protecting against
.
The Pawan Kalyan Precedent
's counsel also referred to an earlier order involving actor-politician Pawan Kalyan, where thousands of URLs had been clubbed together without individual scrutiny, and some contained innocuous pictures. This precedent underscores the danger of overbroad injunctions that could inadvertently suppress lawful content. The court's insistence on a tabulated list for individual review aligns with this concern, ensuring that each URL is examined on its merits.
Legal Analysis: Balancing and
The judgment highlights the evolving jurisprudence on in India. While celebrities have a legitimate interest in controlling the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness, this right is not absolute. It must be balanced against fundamental freedoms, including and expression, as well as the rights of third parties who may use a celebrity's image for satire, criticism, or commentary.
The court's refusal to grant a is a significant departure from earlier trends where courts sometimes issued broad orders in celebrity cases. By requiring a granular, URL-by-URL assessment, the court ensures that only content that clearly falls within the defined categories—obscene material, direct monetisation, or merchandise promotion—is targeted. This approach reduces the risk of collateral damage to legitimate speech and protects the of unknown defendants.
Impact on Legal Practice
For legal practitioners, this case offers valuable guidance on how to frame claims. It underscores the importance of specificity and evidence-based pleadings. Instead of seeking blanket injunctions against thousands of URLs, counsel must now be prepared to categorise content and identify the precise legal basis for each takedown. The court's emphasis on a tabulated list suggests that future claims will require meticulous documentation and a clear nexus between the content and the alleged infringement.
Moreover, the decision signals that courts will scrutinise the use of value-laden terms like "misleading" and will not hesitate to reject overbroad requests. This may prompt a more disciplined approach to drafting pleadings in IP and cases.
Conclusion
The 's ruling in Jahnvi Kapoor's case is a measured and thoughtful response to the complexities of protecting celebrity persona in the digital ecosystem. By declining a but allowing targeted relief for clearly objectionable content, the court has struck a balance that respects both the celebrity's rights and the public's interest in free expression. The matter, now listed for further hearing on , will continue to shape the contours of law in India. For now, the message is clear: are not a blank cheque, and any relief must be precisely tailored to the specific harm alleged.
