Back
Refuses Blanket Takedown of 6,884 URLs, Orders 552 Removed in Kapoor Case
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani of the delivered a nuanced interim order in Bollywood actress Janhvi Kapoor's lawsuit, rejecting the sweeping removal of 6,884 allegedly infringing URLs while mandating the takedown of 552 URLs containing explicit sexually vulgar content.
The Court found the actress's plea for a against all listed URLs "," noting that the suit encompassed diverse types of content ranging from pornographic material to fan pages and commercial exploitation. In a significant procedural direction, the Court instructed Kapoor's counsel to categorize the disputed links into three distinct groups: content that is pornographic or sexually vulgar; content directly monetising the plaintiff's ; and content using her name and likeness to indirectly promote merchandise or services.
Case Background
Janhvi Kapoor filed the suit to protect her against unauthorized online exploitation, including AI-generated deepfakes, impersonation accounts, explicit content, and commercial misuse across thousands of digital platforms. The lawsuit named 21 defendants, including anonymous entities (John Does), social media platforms like , domain registrar , and government authorities (defendants 20 and 21).
Court's Legal Analysis
Justice Bhambhani observed that granting an indiscriminate takedown order would be inappropriate given the varied nature of the URLs. The Court drew a distinction between content that is clearly violative (such as explicit material without consent) and content that may constitute permissible fan expression or commentary. Notably, the Court cautioned that not all fan pages operating in a celebrity's name are automatically illegal, provided they do not monetize the celebrity's identity or disseminate obscene material.
Key Observations
“After a very detailed hearing in the matter, this court is of the view that the claims in the plaint and the prayers sought in the present application are , not only because of the nature of relief sought, but also for the reason that relief has been claimed against a total of 6884 URLs, across various categories.” (Para 27)
“This court is accordingly not inclined to grant to the plaintiff a injuncting or directing the removal or take-down of all 6884 URLs that have been made subject matter of the present suit.” (Para 28)
“Insofar as the impugned URLs that appear at serial Nos.1 to 552 of the annexure to the plaint are concerned, those appear to be grossly sexually vulgar/pornographic content and evidently do not carry any permission from the plaintiff.” (Para 30)
Interim Relief Granted
Despite refusing the , the Court found that Kapoor had made out a regarding the 552 sexually explicit URLs. It held that the favoured the plaintiff, and would result if the material remained online. Accordingly, defendants 20 and 21 were directed to remove the 552 offending URLs within three weeks.
The Court also directed Kapoor to file an amended memo of parties substituting India Web Services Private Limited with .Com LLC, as pointed out by the defendant's counsel.
Implications
This ruling underscores the judiciary's reluctance to grant overly broad takedown orders in cases, especially when the impugned content spans diverse categories. It establishes a framework for courts to classify online infringements and grant relief proportionally, balancing the celebrity's right to control her image with the legitimate interests of fans and third parties. The matter is next listed on for further proceedings.
