Back
Orders Removal of Obscene Janhvi Kapoor Content, Refuses Fan Page Ban
In a nuanced ruling, the has directed the takedown of online content that is obscene, pornographic, or commercially exploiting the of actor Janhvi Kapoor, while declining to impose a blanket ban on fan pages dedicated to her. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani's acknowledges the need to protect celebrity identity from misuse—particularly through AI-generated explicit material—but stops short of restricting legitimate fan expression, underscoring the delicate balance between and free speech.
Kapoor's suit, filed against more than 5,000 webpages and social media posts, targeted alleged AI-generated pornographic content, impersonation accounts, fake booking agencies, and chatbots using her identity without consent. The court's directive comes amid growing concerns over the ease with which digital tools can manipulate a person's likeness and the corresponding legal remedies available to public figures.
The Court's Targeted Approach
Justice Bhambhani observed that the submissions in the plaint and the prayers sought were overbroad, and therefore directed Kapoor's counsel to revert with a tabulated chart identifying webpages that contain
"
pornographic, obscene, prurient, lascivious"
content or that directly monetise her
through the sale of merchandise or services. The judge indicated,
"I am inclined to give you relief in these categories,"
signalling a willingness to act against material that clearly crosses legal boundaries.
However, the court declined Kapoor's request for a covering all future instances of alleged infringement. The judge noted that the legal line between and freedom of expression requires careful consideration, especially in the digital age where commentary, satire, and criticism are commonplace.
Balancing Act: Obscenity vs. Fan Expression
The most significant aspect of the order is the court's refusal to sanction a blanket ban on fan pages. Justice Bhambhani stressed that fan pages can include praise, criticism, satire, or discussion about a public figure, and questioned whether all such accounts could be treated as infringing content. The observation reflects a broader judicial concern: while celebrities have a legitimate interest in controlling the commercial exploitation of their identity, that interest does not automatically override the free-speech rights of fans and online communities.
The court's approach distinguishes between material that harms or exploits a celebrity and content that merely references them. For instance, a fan page sharing movie stills or interviews is unlikely to constitute infringement unless it uses the celebrity's likeness to sell products or misleads the public. This distinction is essential to preventing personality-rights claims from becoming a tool to suppress legitimate online discourse.
Copyright and Collide
During the hearing, the court also grappled with the intersection of copyright ownership and . Justice Bhambhani questioned whether the sale of a copyrighted photograph, artwork, or other creative work featuring a celebrity automatically amounts to commercial exploitation of that person's identity. He observed that copyrights typically belong to the creator—such as a photographer or artist—and indicated that courts must carefully balance those rights against personality-rights claims.
This issue is particularly contentious in cases where third-party images are used without the celebrity's consent but the images themselves are lawfully owned by someone else. The court's hesitation suggests that a blanket presumption of infringement in such contexts would be inappropriate, leaving room for case-by-case analysis.
's Practical Objections
Representing , counsel for the social media platform opposed parts of the petition, arguing that reviewing and verifying thousands of links identified in the suit would be difficult in practice. also contended that AI-generated images are not automatically prohibited under law. These objections highlight the practical challenges faced by digital intermediaries when asked to police content at scale.
The court's refusal to grant a broad injunction may, in part, reflect an understanding of these operational hurdles. By requiring a specific list of URLs, the court ensures that takedown directions are targeted and feasible, rather than imposing an unworkable obligation on platforms to proactively screen all content.
The Rising Threat of AI-Generated Content
The case is emblematic of a larger legal battlefield: the proliferation of deepfakes and sexually explicit AI-generated material involving real individuals. Unlike conventional photo manipulation, sophisticated deepfakes can make it appear that a person said or did something they never did, causing irreparable reputational harm. For public figures, the damage can be instantaneous, as millions may encounter the fabricated material before it is debunked.
Indian courts have increasingly been called upon to address this phenomenon. Earlier this year, the granted similar protection to actor Arjun Kapoor, ordering the removal of sexually explicit and AI-generated content and directing and to provide information about offending accounts. Those cases demonstrate that courts are willing to intervene, but they also reveal the tension between protecting individual dignity and preserving an open internet.
A Growing Precedent for Celebrity Privacy
The has now issued personality-rights protection orders in favour of several public figures, including Tabu, Sonakshi Sinha, Allu Arjun, Mohanlal, Arjun Kapoor, Ravi Kishan, Gautam Gambhir, and Yuvraj Singh. Each case reinforces the principle that unauthorised commercial use of a celebrity's name, likeness, or identity is actionable, even when the infringing content is generated by AI.
However, the Janhvi Kapoor order adds a critical nuance: it refuses to treat all fan activity as infringement. This judicial restraint is vital for maintaining the boundary between legal protection and censorship. As the internet becomes saturated with user-generated content, courts must ensure that personality-rights claims do not chill legitimate speech, especially when that speech is non-commercial and does not cause harm.
Implications for Digital Platforms and Legal Practitioners
For lawyers representing celebrities, the takeaway is clear: overbroad prayers that seek to block entire categories of content are unlikely to succeed. Instead, plaintiffs must identify specific URLs and demonstrate how each page falls within defined categories of obscenity, pornography, or commercial exploitation. This precision is not merely a procedural nicety—it is a constitutional safeguard that prevents on speech.
For digital platforms, the order underscores the need to develop robust mechanisms for handling takedown requests that are both efficient and respectful of free-expression rights. While courts have stopped short of imposing sweeping monitoring duties, intermediaries must still respond promptly to court-ordered notices once they are issued.
A Delicate Balance for the Future
The Janhvi Kapoor case illustrates the complexity of protecting in an era of deepfakes, viral content, and algorithmic amplification. Courts must weigh the legitimate interests of celebrities against the fundamental right to . The 's targeted approach—granting relief against obscene and commercially exploitative material while declining to ban fan pages—offers a workable template.
As AI tools become more sophisticated, the legal system will continue to evolve. What remains constant is the need for nuanced, fact-specific adjudication. The order in this case serves as a reminder that the law must adapt to technological change without sacrificing core constitutional values. For celebrities like Janhvi Kapoor, it provides a measure of protection against the worst abuses; for fans, it preserves the space for passionate, lawful engagement.
Conclusion
The 's in favour of Janhvi Kapoor marks another step in the ongoing judicial effort to reconcile with free speech. By ordering the takedown of clearly obscene content and rejecting a sweeping ban on fan pages, Justice Bhambhani has calibrated the response to the specific harms alleged. The decision reinforces the importance of evidence-based, targeted remedies in the digital realm, and it will likely shape future personality-rights litigation in India.
As the entertainment industry grapples with the challenges of AI-generated content and identity theft, courts are forging a path that protects individual dignity without strangling online expression. The Janhvi Kapoor case stands as a testament to that delicate equilibrium—a reminder that even in the age of deepfakes, the law can provide meaningful relief while upholding the fundamental freedoms that underpin our democracy.
