Back
Grants Alakh Pandey Injunction on Vulgar, Commercial, Impersonation Content Only
Justice Anup Jairim Bhambhani of the has granted a limited to educator and founder Alakh Pandey, restricting protection to three specific categories of infringement while warning against the overbroad application of .
Drawing the Line on
In a suit alleging widespread violation of his personality and through online content, Alakh Pandey sought to restrain numerous defendants from using his name, image, voice, and persona without authorisation. The court, however, proceeded with caution, recognising that the concept of “may be over broad and therefore susceptible to misapplication.”
Justice Bhambhani explicitly stated that cannot be deployed to prevent dissemination of information about wrongdoing or “to extinguish an entire genre of expression including caricature, lampooning or parody” where such expression does not amount to commercial exploitation.
The Three Categories of Infringement
The court identified three specific sets of violations that warranted interim protection:
- Sexually Vulgar Content – Content portraying the plaintiff in a sexually explicit or obscene manner.
- Commercial Exploitation – Content monetising the plaintiff’s personality for gain without any licence or right.
- Impersonation – Content falsely representing itself as the plaintiff or his authorised channels.
After a preliminary appreciation of the matter, the court found that Pandey had made out a prima facie case on these three counts. It held that the lay in his favour and that would result if interim protection was denied.
Intermediaries Directed to Act
The injunction was directed against specific defendants identified by URLs, including those hosting stickers on
stickers.fullyst.com
, GIFs on Tenor, and posts on Instagram, YouTube, and other platforms. The court further directed intermediary defendants (including social media platforms, domain name registrars, and internet service providers) to remove or take down the identified infringing content and to disclose the identity and contact details of the account holders behind the offending URLs.
Addressing concerns about the neutrality of intermediaries under , the court clarified that it was not delegating discretion to block websites. Instead, intermediaries were merely tasked with technically verifying whether any mirror, alphanumeric, or re-direct websites were prima facie infringing and then enforcing the court’s order accordingly.
Protections for Expression and Parody
The court’s cautious approach reflects an awareness of the potential for to be weaponised against legitimate forms of expression. By limiting the interim protection to sexually vulgar content, commercial exploitation, and impersonation, the court has preserved the space for caricature, lampooning, and parody that do not cross into commercial misuse.
The case has been listed for completion of pleadings before the Joint Registrar on , with the plaintiff directed to comply with within four weeks.
What This Means
This judgment serves as an important reminder that are not absolute. While public figures are entitled to protect their identity from degrading misuse and unauthorised commercial gain, the right does not extend to suppressing humour, commentary, or satire that does not cause commercial harm. The ’s balanced approach sets a precedent for how such claims will be assessed in the digital age.
