Back
Told Broad Claims Risk , ,
In a significant development for Indian intellectual property and law, the on Tuesday heard argue that sweeping "" claims, coupled with broad , are unknown to Indian law and risk chilling legitimate forms of expression such as , , , and . The submissions came in the ongoing suit filed by actor Janhvi Kapoor seeking protection of her .
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani is presiding over the matter, which also involves a separate suit by actor Vivek Oberoi. Bhatia, appointed as amicus in Kapoor's case, has filed detailed written submissions urging the court to adopt a nuanced, rather than granting that could violate .
The Core of the Argument: Disentangling
Bhatia submitted that "" do not constitute a single giving rise to a uniform remedy such as a . Instead, the expression encompasses a bundle of distinct legal interests that may be protected through different causes of action and remedies. According to the amicus, courts must disentangle an omnibus personality-rights claim into its constituent legal elements and examine what specific legal interest is being asserted, what harm is alleged, what remedy Indian law recognises for that harm, and whether any or interests prevent the grant of relief.
“At the first level, legal interests are disentangled into commercial and non-commercial interests. Non-commercial interests are protected by existing torts of and , grounded within non-alienable, non-heritable human dignity and autonomy. Commercial interests, in turn, can be further divided into rights of publicity, , , and existing statutory intellectual property frameworks of and ,” Bhatia argued.
This granular approach, he contended, is essential to avoid conflating -based dignitary claims with commercial exploitation claims, which require distinct legal frameworks and remedies.
Commercial vs. Non-Commercial Interests
Bhatia urged the court to treat the or as a , whose foundations are located in and dignity, rather than a violation of an individual's property in their image. He relied upon the principles of , submitting that commercial use may give rise to a claim only where there is a misrepresentation or false suggestion of endorsement resulting in actionable harm. However, use of a publicly available image which does not amount to , , or any other illegality should generally be permitted.
The amicus further argued that private information on matters of public interest is also protected under the and expression, and that the demonstration of public interest is fact-sensitive, depending on a . He cautioned against extending a beyond such as and , warning that it would create a broad over a person's image or persona.
Protection for , , and
One of the most closely watched aspects of the submission was Bhatia’s clear stance on . He stated that “, including , , and , should generally receive protection, subject to limitations such as , , , violations, and of copyrighted works.”
“The existence of , , and fanwork emphasise the importance of disentangling the dignitarian -based elements of a claim, from the commercial elements, and also highlight the perils of adopting a property-based framework for the . The running together of these elements risks broad injunctions that violate the right to ,” he added.
This position aligns with international trends that recognise the social and cultural value of , even when they involve celebrity images.
Court’s Interaction and Next Steps
During the hearing, Bhatia concluded his submissions by clarifying that if content posted by fan clubs does not fall under any of the flagged by him—including simple use of a celebrity's image—it will not be a ground for injunction. Justice Bhambhani then posed a pointed question: if a photograph of a celebrity is clicked by a celebrity photographer or is taken from a movie poster, would it still be permissible?
Bhatia responded that such situations fall under law and would have to be adjudicated by applying tests laid down under the and statutory provisions. The court has listed the matter for further hearing tomorrow.
While Bhatia was appointed as amicus in Kapoor's suit, has been appointed as amicus in Oberoi's case. The parallel proceedings indicate the court’s intent to develop a coherent framework for claims in India.
Implications for Legal Practice
This case has far-reaching implications for lawyers and litigants involved in , , and intellectual property disputes. If the adopts the approach suggested by Bhatia, it would require plaintiffs to precisely identify the legal interest being infringed—whether , , , , or —rather than relying on a vague "" umbrella. This would likely curb the use of sweeping that can inadvertently block lawful speech.
For media and entertainment lawyers, the judgment could provide much-needed clarity on the boundaries between protecting a celebrity’s commercial interest in their image and preserving the public’s right to engage in , criticism, and fan expression. The emphasis on also means that courts will need to carefully , with and law playing central roles.
The outcome will also influence how platforms and content creators approach the use of celebrity images in , fan fiction, and commentary. A clear ruling protecting non-commercial, transformative uses could encourage creativity while still allowing celebrities to pursue legitimate claims against misleading endorsements or invasions.
Conclusion
The ’s engagement with these nuanced arguments marks a pivotal moment in Indian jurisprudence on . By pushing back against the notion of a monolithic “personality right” and demanding a structured analysis of interests and remedies, the amicus has set the stage for a judgment that could reconcile commercial interests with fundamental constitutional freedoms. As the matter continues, legal professionals across practice areas will be watching closely for a decision that may reshape the landscape of celebrity rights and free expression in India.
