Back
Denies , Orders Takedown of Obscene Content for Meenakshi Chaudhary
The has granted actress Meenakshi Chaudhary an directing the takedown of obscene and sexually explicit content posted without her consent, but firmly refused to issue a protecting all her at this stage. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, presiding over the suit, emphasised that the plaintiff must present concrete evidence of before broader relief can be considered.
The ruling marks a significant judicial stance in the evolving landscape of litigation in India. While the court readily intervened to remove offensive material, it declined to extend the same protection to content that merely used Chaudhary’s name, image, or likeness without demonstrable monetisation. The judge’s remarks underscore a growing judicial caution against granting sweeping injunctions that could chill legitimate speech and media use.
The Three Categories of Alleged Infringement
During the hearing, Chaudhary’s counsel categorised the allegedly infringing URLs into three distinct groups. The first comprised URLs hosting sexually explicit content posted without her consent—material the court found plainly violative of her dignity and privacy. The second category included content that, according to the plaintiff, exploited her personality by attracting views or hits that were then monetised through advertising. The third category involved the use of her name and likeness to indirectly promote the sale of merchandise or services.
Justice Bhambhani pressed the counsel to demonstrate how the number of views translated into actual revenue. “You have to show me that they are making money. What is the evidence that they have made money on your personality?” the court asked. The judge pointed out that high view counts alone were not sufficient proof of commercial gain. “2,51,000 views, no problem. And you will be the happiest because you want those views, you want those hits, right? It shows your popularity. But show me that somebody has made money on it,” he remarked.
AI-Generated Content and the Line Between Protection and Overreach
The court also scrutinised the claim concerning AI-generated images bearing Chaudhary’s likeness. The judge noted that since there was no allegation of copyright infringement—because the images were described as AI-generated—the plaintiff needed to be specific about how the defendants were using her personality for profit. “None of this is obscene. I mean, you are a public personality. Now, how are they monetizing the personality?” the judge asked.
Drawing a parallel, Justice Bhambhani observed that a website carrying news about the with photographs of its judges might itself be making money from advertising, but that does not mean the judges have a claim for infringement. “That website may be making money itself but that has nothing to do with us,” he said, illustrating the difficulty of drawing a clear line.
The judge expressed his general reluctance to grant blanket injunctions in matters. “I am against granting blanket injunctions on . Let me be very clear. It has to be proved that someone is making money on your images etc.,” he stated. He further questioned where the line should be drawn, especially for public figures: “If you don’t want anyone to use your photos, then you say. I will pass an order that no one can use your photos and then every image will disappear from the internet…. If there is something vulgar or obscene, it will have to go but you are a public personality. Where do we draw the line?”
The Court’s Order and What Was Left Open
In its order, the granted an only in relation to the first category—the sexually explicit content. The broader claims of and indirect promotion of merchandise were left open for consideration at a later stage. The suit has been listed for further hearing on , alongside similar suits filed by Bollywood actors Janhvi Kapoor and Vivek Oberoi.
The court is currently adjudicating a larger legal question in matters and has even appointed to assist. This coordinated approach suggests that the judiciary is seeking to develop a coherent framework for balancing the of public figures against and commercial interests.
Broader Context: The Landscape of in the
The has been at the forefront of protection in India. It has previously safeguarded the of actors such as Tabu, Allu Arjun, Mohanlal, Kajol Devgan, and R Madhavan, as well as cricketers like Abhishek Sharma, Yuvraj Singh, and Sunil Gavaskar. Political figures, including Congress leader Shashi Tharoor and Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, have also obtained protection. Entrepreneurs like Aman Gupta and spiritual leaders such as Aniruddhacharya have similarly benefited.
More recently, the court passed a protecting the of podcaster Raj Shamani, recognising his status as a known content creator. These cases reflect a steady expansion of jurisprudence, but Justice Bhambhani’s remarks signal a judicial desire to impose guardrails. The court appears wary of turning into a tool for suppressing all unauthorised use of a celebrity’s image, especially when no commercial harm is proven.
Legal Implications for Practitioners
For legal professionals, this judgment offers several important takeaways. First, it reinforces that ex parte relief in suits is not automatic; the court will carefully calibrate the scope of injunctions. Second, plaintiffs must come prepared with evidence of monetisation—simple allegations of widespread use or high viewership will not suffice. Third, the distinction between obscene or defamatory content and is critical; the court is more willing to protect against the former than the latter.
The ruling also highlights the challenges posed by AI-generated content. As deepfakes and synthetic media become more prevalent, courts will need to develop new tests for liability when the content is not directly defamatory but still uses a person’s likeness without consent. The ’s insistence on proof of monetisation may push litigants to adopt more forensic approaches, such as analysing ad revenue data or tracing financial flows from infringing platforms.
Conclusion
Justice Bhambhani’s order in the Meenakshi Chaudhary case is a measured step in the development of Indian law. By granting targeted relief for obscene content while withholding broader protection pending evidence of , the court has struck a pragmatic balance. As the larger legal question proceeds to adjudication with the help of , the legal community will be watching closely for the emergence of clearer standards. For now, the message is clear: celebrities seeking to protect their must bring more than a claim of popularity—they must prove that someone is actually cashing in on it.
