Back
Groups Vivek Oberoi Janhvi Kapoor Aaradhya Bachchan Cases to Define
The has taken a significant step toward clarifying the legal boundaries of in India by consolidating three high-profile suits filed by actors Vivek Oberoi, Janhvi Kapoor, and Amitabh Bachchan’s granddaughter, Aaradhya Bachchan. On Monday, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed that these three matters be heard together starting , with the aim of “chipping off” what does not constitute until a definitive legal framework emerges.
The move comes amid a surge of litigation by celebrities, influencers, and public figures seeking protection against unauthorized commercial exploitation of their names, images, and voices—particularly on digital platforms. The Court’s approach signals a deliberate effort to avoid piecemeal adjudication and instead develop coherent guiding principles for future cases.
The Court’s Sculptural Metaphor
During the hearing, Justice Bhambhani employed a striking analogy to explain the need for a structured judicial inquiry into . “The way I look at it is that there is this monolithic block of clay or wood in front of me that makes no sense to me. I don't discern any design or image. I want to chip off what I consider is not personality right. Whatever remains, remains,” he observed.
The judge further noted that subsequent cases would require the court to “chip off further part so that ultimately some kind of a definitive face emerges saying that this is what is about.” This reflects a conscious decision to avoid ruling on a large batch of petitions simultaneously, which the Court felt would complicate adjudication.
A Light-Hearted Query on Fan Accounts
In a lighter moment, the Court questioned the sweeping reliefs often sought in suits, particularly demands for takedown of fan-run accounts and pages. “Should we ban all fans? Nobody should have any fans. There will be no fan, then no problem. No celebrity should have any fan clubs or fan accounts,” Justice Bhambhani quipped.
The remark underscores the tension between protecting a celebrity’s commercial interest in their persona and preserving rights of fans and the general public. On , the Court had already declined to order a blanket takedown of fan pages in Kapoor’s case, observing that such a direction could have implications for . However, it did direct the removal of content that was pornographic, obscene, prurient, or lascivious and appeared to directly monetise her .
Role of in Shaping the Debate
The Court appointed advocates and as to assist in segregating the different categories of claimants. Justice Bhambhani asked whether celebrities, influencers, and a senior counsel (who has also filed a suit) should be treated differently.
Bhatia responded that the answer depends on the exact nature of the claim. “If it is a commercial interest which is based in propriety rights of an individual, then recognisability will matter, since it is an abuse of commercial aspect of their image. But if it is founded in , defamation or dignity, then those will be uniform,” he submitted.
Alva added, “There are certain aspects of personality which fall into different brackets, which is the first thing Lordship may examine. There will be evolving cases before the court.”
The Legal Landscape of in India
in India have traditionally been protected under the , the under , and, more recently, under intellectual property law. The has been at the forefront of recognizing the as a distinct legal right, separate from privacy. In landmark cases such as and , the Court held that the vests in a person’s name, likeness, and persona and is an intellectual property right that can be licensed or assigned.
However, the digital age has introduced novel challenges. Social media platforms enable the rapid proliferation of fan pages, parody accounts, and deepfake content that blur the lines between legitimate commentary and commercial . Celebrities like Janhvi Kapoor have faced explicit content created using their images, while others, like Aaradhya Bachchan, a minor, seek protection from being drawn into public discourse against their will.
Implications for the Legal Community
The ’s decision to first hear three representative suits is likely to provide much-needed clarity for practitioners handling matters. By focusing on cases involving different categories of claimants—a major film star (Oberoi), a rising actress (Kapoor), and a minor child of a celebrity family (Aaradhya Bachchan)—the Court can address a spectrum of issues, including the extent of commercial exploitation, the threshold for defences, and the protection of minors’ rights.
Legal experts anticipate that the Court will lay down guidelines on:
- The test for determining when a use of a celebrity’s image is “commercial” versus “expressive.”
- The standard of proof required to establish .
- The liability of intermediaries and social media platforms for hosting infringing content.
- The balance between and the under .
A Potential Blueprint for Future Litigation
The consolidated hearing is expected to produce a “definitive face” of , as Justice Bhambhani put it. This could reduce the flood of similar suits by providing a clear legal framework that claimants and defendants can rely upon. It may also encourage alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as negotiated takedowns and licensing agreements, rather than protracted litigation.
For now, the legal community awaits the hearing with keen interest. The outcome will not only affect the three celebrities involved but will set a precedent for the hundreds of cases pending across Indian courts. As the digital economy expands, the definition and scope of will remain a critical area of law, and the is poised to be the architect of its modern contours.
Conclusion
The ’s approach of using three representative cases to sculpt a comprehensive doctrine of is a pragmatic judicial strategy. By addressing the nuances of commercial interest, privacy, and in a single proceeding, the Court aims to provide clarity and consistency. The inclusion of diverse claimants—from established stars to a minor—ensures that the principles developed will be robust enough to cover a wide range of scenarios. As the hearing approaches, all eyes are on Justice Bhambhani and the to deliver a landmark ruling that balances the rights of individuals with the freedoms of the digital public square.
