Delhi High Court Questions Meta, Google on Takedown of Morphed Content in Kumar Sanu's Personality Rights Suit

New Delhi – The Delhi High Court has firmly placed the onus on social media giants Meta and Google to justify their inaction against morphed videos and profane content, in a high-profile personality rights lawsuit filed by veteran playback singer Kumar Sanu. Hearing the matter on October 13, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora critically questioned the intermediaries' reluctance to utilize their grievance redressal mechanisms under the Information Technology (IT) Rules, 2021, signalling a growing judicial impatience with platforms forcing every aggrieved individual to seek court intervention.

The case, KUMAR SANU BHATTACHARJEE v. JAMMABLE LIMITED & ORS , adds to a burgeoning list of legal actions by celebrities seeking to protect their persona from unauthorized exploitation in the digital age, particularly from misuse driven by artificial intelligence.

The Core of the Dispute: Protecting a Legacy

Kumar Sanu, a celebrated figure in the Indian music industry, has approached the High Court seeking a comprehensive injunction to protect his "personality and publicity rights." The suit aims to prevent the unauthorized use of his name, voice, image, vocal style, likeness, and other unique attributes by third parties for commercial gain or to create disreputable content.

The singer's plea details a range of infringing activities, from the circulation of GIFs and audio-visual clips that subject him to "unsavoury humour," to the more technologically advanced creation of content using AI to clone his voice and morph his face. Sanu's counsel, Advocates Shikha Sachdeva and Sana Raees Khan, submitted that this content is not only misleading but is also used in commercial merchandising and revenue-generating posts on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube, constituting false endorsement and passing off. One specific example cited in court was a morphed video falsely depicting Sanu singing a song for a former Prime Minister of Pakistan.

Beyond the violation of his personality rights, the suit also invokes Section 38B of the Copyright Act, 1957, which grants performers "moral rights." This includes the right to claim authorship of a performance and to restrain or claim damages for any distortion, mutilation, or other modification of their performance that would be prejudicial to their reputation.

Court Scrutinizes Intermediary Responsibility Under IT Rules

The hearing's pivotal moment came when the Court directly addressed the counsel for Meta (Defendant No. 7) and Google (Defendant No. 20). Justice Arora directed them to take instructions and explain why URLs bearing "morphed videos" and containing "profane language" against the singer should not be summarily taken down by their respective Grievance Officers as per the IT Rules.

"Why has everyone forgotten the IT Rules?" the Court orally remarked, highlighting its frustration with the apparent default position of intermediaries directing users to the judiciary. The judge's line of questioning suggested a focus on the proactive responsibilities enshrined in the digital media regulations.

In response, counsel for Meta presented a nuanced argument that has become central to the debate on intermediary liability. The counsel submitted that while they can act on certain types of content, the removal of the word "defamation" from the IT Rules, 2021, has created a grey area. "The difficulty is, if there is profanity. Under IT Rules the word defamation was specifically removed. Now as an intermediary I cannot judge what is profane what is not. That part has to be adjudicated by court," the counsel argued. This position was further bolstered by a reference to a Supreme Court judgment cautioning against intermediaries acting as a "super censor."

Unpersuaded by this justification for inaction, Justice Arora pointedly asked, "Why? Please see 3d(ii)," likely referencing the obligations under Rule 3 of the IT Rules, which mandates intermediaries to make reasonable efforts to prevent users from hosting, displaying, or sharing content that is, among other things, obscene, invasive of another's privacy, or harmful.

The Court’s directive was clear and pragmatic: "Whatever you can take down you take down. You have benefit of the plaint. If a complaint is coming to you, if you have to Act as per the Rules. You come day after and tell me what you took down and what you didn't. Because everybody cannot come to court."

Legal Implications: A Push for Proactive Platform Governance

This judicial exchange underscores a critical tension in Indian internet law: balancing the safe harbour protections for intermediaries with their due diligence obligations. While platforms are shielded from liability for third-party content, this protection is contingent on their compliance with regulations like the IT Rules, which include establishing robust grievance redressal mechanisms.

Justice Arora's stance appears to challenge the notion that complex or subjective categories of harmful content, such as profanity or reputational damage, are exclusively for judicial determination. By pushing the platforms' grievance officers to act on the prima facie evidence presented in the plaint—morphed videos and profane language—the Court is advocating for a more effective first line of defence against infringing content, thereby reducing the burden on the judicial system.

This approach aligns with the intent behind the IT Rules, which were designed to make digital platforms more accountable and responsive to user complaints without requiring a court order for every takedown. The Court's insistence that platforms act on what they clearly can, while leaving more contentious issues for adjudication, represents a practical middle path.

A Trend of Celebrity Rights Litigation

Kumar Sanu's lawsuit is the latest in a series of similar actions before the Delhi High Court, which is rapidly becoming the primary forum for the adjudication of personality rights in India. In recent months, the court has granted protective orders to journalist Sudhir Chaudhary, spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, and actors like Nagarjuna, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, and Abhishek Bachchan.

This trend highlights the escalating conflict between freedom of expression, the right to parody, and the individual's right to control their identity and persona, especially as AI technology makes it easier to create convincing deepfakes and voice clones. The courts are now tasked with drawing lines on a rapidly shifting technological landscape.

As part of the proceedings, the Court has directed Sanu’s counsel to provide a tabulated list of the infringing URLs and the corresponding defendants, a procedural step also followed in actor Jackie Shroff’s recent personality rights case. This organized approach is intended to streamline the review and takedown process for the intermediaries.

The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on October 15, when Meta and Google are expected to report back on the actions taken. The outcome of this hearing will be closely watched by legal professionals, tech companies, and content creators, as it could further clarify the scope of intermediary responsibility and the enforcement of personality rights against digital misuse.