Delhi High Court Navigates Personality Rights, Distinguishing Fan Tribute from Commercial Exploitation in Hrithik Roshan Case

New Delhi – In a significant interim order that refines the burgeoning jurisprudence on celebrity personality rights in India, the Delhi High Court has protected actor Hrithik Roshan from unauthorized commercial use of his identity, while pointedly refusing to issue a blanket, ex parte takedown of non-commercial fan pages. The ruling by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora underscores a crucial judicial balancing act between a celebrity's right to control their persona and the expressive freedom of fans in the digital age.

The court, hearing a suit filed by Roshan against several entities for infringing his personality and publicity rights, granted an injunction against specific URLs selling merchandise and using AI-generated content that exploited his name, image, and likeness for commercial gain. However, it drew a clear line when it came to fan clubs and non-commercial activities, such as dance tutorials using his publicly available work, signaling that not all uses of a celebrity's identity constitute actionable infringement.

The decision arrives amidst a wave of similar lawsuits from public figures like Amitabh Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, and Sudhir Chaudhary, as Indian courts grapple with the implications of digital media and artificial intelligence on an individual's right to publicity. This order provides critical guidance on the evidentiary threshold and judicial approach to distinguishing between legitimate fan tribute and unlawful commercial exploitation.

The Contours of the Dispute: Commercial Use vs. Fan Adulation

Appearing for Hrithik Roshan, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi argued for broad protection, submitting that the actor's persona was being illicitly monetized. The plaintiff's counsel presented evidence of unauthorized merchandise, including t-shirts and bags, being sold using Roshan's name and image. The suit also targeted an AI chatbot impersonating the actor and what were described as "altered" and "demeaning" video snippets.

However, the plea for a sweeping takedown of fan pages on platforms like Instagram met with judicial skepticism. Mr. Sethi contended that some fan clubs were commercializing Roshan's identity to generate revenue. Justice Arora, however, sought a clear distinction. "We can't have fanclubs taken down at ex parte stage," the court observed. "I understand commercialisation, morphed, obscene, but I don't understand fanclub takedown...Instagram use is not only commercial. People do it for fun and recreation. These pages are not defamatory to you at all."

This stance highlights a pivotal aspect of personality rights litigation: the motive behind the use. The court was not persuaded that fan adoration, in itself, caused the kind of irreparable harm that would justify an immediate, pre-hearing injunction against entire social media profiles.

The Public Domain and Transformative Use: A Nuanced Approach

A key point of contention involved the use of Roshan's popular song and dance videos for online dance tutorials. Mr. Sethi argued this was an unauthorized use of the actor's performance. The court disagreed, providing a noteworthy observation on the nature of content in the public domain.

"It's a song which is of Hritik Roshan which they will be using for dance tutorial. They are using that performance to teach people. It is not commercial merchandise. At this stage i am not persuaded by this...This is available in public domain. Anybody can use this," Justice Arora remarked.

This observation suggests that the court may view such use as transformative or educational, falling outside the ambit of commercial exploitation that personality rights are primarily designed to prevent. By using the performance as a basis for instruction, the creators of the tutorials were not merely re-selling Roshan's image but were using it to create new, instructional content. This distinction is vital for legal practitioners advising clients in the content creation space, where the line between inspiration and infringement can be thin.

Procedural Safeguards and Proportionality

The court's procedural handling of the case is as instructive as its substantive observations. Instead of ordering an immediate takedown of the fan pages, Justice Arora adopted a more measured and procedurally sound approach. The court directed the concerned social media intermediaries, such as Meta, to furnish the Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) of the fan page administrators to the plaintiff within three weeks.

This allows Roshan to implead these individuals as parties to the suit, ensuring they are heard before any adverse orders are passed against them. "Let those fans come; Mr. Roshan will then have to seek takedown of each fan club," the court stated, reinforcing the principles of natural justice.

Furthermore, the court embraced the principle of proportionality, as advocated by counsel for Meta. The platform's lawyer noted that while they would comply with orders to remove specific infringing posts, taking down entire profiles would be a disproportionate response, especially when the pages are explicitly declared as fan-run. The court concurred, limiting its injunction to specific URLs identified by the plaintiff as commercially infringing or otherwise objectionable, rather than issuing a broad, overreaching order.

Legal Implications and Future Trajectory

This interim order from the Delhi High Court offers several key takeaways for legal professionals in intellectual property and media law:

• High Bar for Ex Parte Injunctions Against Fan Pages: The ruling establishes a high threshold for obtaining ex parte relief against non-commercial fan content. Plaintiffs will need to demonstrate clear commercialization, defamation, or obscenity to justify an urgent takedown without hearing the other side. Mere use of a celebrity's image on a fan page is unlikely to suffice.

• Motive Matters: The court has heavily emphasized the distinction between commercial profiteering and non-commercial expression. Lawyers building a case for personality rights infringement must focus on demonstrating a clear element of monetary gain or reputational harm.

• Affirmation of Protection Against AI: In line with its recent orders in other celebrity cases, the court showed no hesitation in agreeing to take down unauthorized AI-generated content, recognizing the unique threat it poses to an individual's identity and reputation.

• Procedural Diligence is Key: The judgment serves as a reminder that courts will favor specific, targeted requests over broad, sweeping ones. Plaintiffs must identify specific infringing URLs and be prepared to implead individual users rather than seeking blanket bans.

As the case, titled HRITHIK ROSHAN v. ASHOK KUMAR & ORS , proceeds to the next hearing scheduled for March 27, 2026, the legal community will be watching closely. The eventual arguments from the impleaded fan page operators could lead to a landmark decision further delineating the boundaries of fan expression and the enforceable scope of a celebrity's right to publicity in India. For now, Justice Arora's order provides a pragmatic and balanced framework, protecting legitimate commercial interests while safeguarding the vibrant culture of fandom that thrives in the digital public square.