Back
rules cannot extinguish , , or
The on delivered a significant interim ruling on , cautioning that the concept must not become a tool to smother legitimate expression. While granting founder and educator Alakh Pandey limited protection against misuse of his persona, the court firmly held that cannot be deployed to extinguish , , , or to prevent .
The order, passed by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani in a commercial suit filed by Pandey, reflects a careful balance between an individual’s right to control of their identity and the public’s freedom to engage in satire and criticism.
A Web of Misuse and Three Categories of Harm
Pandey, a well-known educator and founder of the popular ed-tech platform , approached the court alleging widespread online misuse of his name, image, voice, and likeness. The suit targeted a range of defendants including unknown social media account operators, sticker platforms, coupon websites, and domain registrars. , appearing for Pandey, presented a tabulated summary of infringing URLs which the plaintiff categorised into three groups: sexually vulgar content, content that commercially exploits Pandey's personality for gain, and content that impersonates him.
The court took note of specific URLs hosting obscene sticker packs on platforms like Tenor and Fullyst, Instagram posts, YouTube videos, and even websites offering coupon codes under Pandey's name without authorisation. Fake profiles on LinkedIn, Telegram, and X (formerly Twitter) were also flagged.
The Overbreadth Warning
Before granting relief, the court sounded a critical caution. Relying on an earlier coordinate bench decision in , Justice Bhambhani observed:
“In the opinion of this court, the concept of as has been claimed in the present matter may be over broad and therefore susceptible to misapplication.”
The court explicitly stated that it wanted to ensure are “not deployed to prevent dissemination of information in relation to wrongdoing; or to extinguish an entire genre of expression including , or which may not amount to of an individual’s personality or .”
Limited Protection Granted
Proceeding from that word of caution, the court confined interim protection to the three specific sets of violations pleaded by Pandey:
- Sexually vulgar portrayal of the plaintiff,
- Unauthorised monetisation of his personality for gain,
- of the plaintiff.
The court held that Pandey had made out a case limited to these categories, that the favoured him, and that he would suffer without protection. Consequently, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was issued against defendants identified in the infringing URLs (Defendants 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 13-16, 18-20) restraining them from using Pandey’s persona in the specified ways. Platforms hosting the content (Defendants 21-31) were directed to take it down and disclose the identity, contact, and payment details of the account operators.
The court also outlined a mechanism for dealing with mirror or redirect websites, allowing Pandey to approach intermediaries with supporting material, subject to filing an impleadment application. A warning was issued that any false or non-bona fide assertion “would invite appropriate orders from the court.”
Broader Implications for Public Figures
The ruling underscores that even well-known personalities do not enjoy an unqualified monopoly over their image when the usage falls within the realm of , criticism, or non-commercial commentary. By drawing a clear line around , vulgarity, and , the court has provided a framework that protects legitimate economic and dignitary interests without strangling free expression.
The matter is now listed before the Joint Registrar on for completion of pleadings. Until then, the interim injunction remains in force against the specified categories of abuse, offering Pandey immediate relief while preserving the broader public interest in creative and critical discourse.
