High Courts Tackle Personality Rights, Contempt, and Fake News Regulation in a Week of Diverse Legal Developments

A series of significant orders and policy discussions have emerged from India's higher judiciary and government bodies this past week, touching upon the expanding frontiers of personality rights, the unwavering authority of the courts, the contentious regulation of online speech, and the foundational principles of access to justice. From the Delhi High Court issuing coercive measures in a contempt case and protecting a celebrity's persona, to Karnataka's proposed bill against "fake news," and the Chief Justice of India's call for strengthening legal aid, these developments offer a compelling snapshot of the evolving legal landscape.

---

Delhi High Court: Upholding Judicial Dignity and Defining Personality Rights

The Delhi High Court was at the forefront of two distinct yet equally significant legal matters this week, reinforcing judicial procedure while also navigating the complex terrain of intellectual property in the digital age.

Bailable Warrants Issued for Calling Proceedings 'Stupid'

In a stark reminder of the sanctity of judicial proceedings, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court issued bailable warrants against a litigant who not only defied an order for physical appearance but also openly disrespected the court. In the suo motu contempt case, Court on its Own Motion v Adeeshwar Singhal , the contemnor, Adeeshwar Singhal, appeared virtually despite being directed to be present in person.

When questioned by the Bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Manoj Jain about his non-compliance, Singhal provided "vague and evasive answers" and refused to disclose his location. The situation escalated when he dismissed the legal action against him, stating that he would not be facing these "stupid proceedings."

This remark was promptly recorded in the court's November 6 order, which noted, "So much so, he also uttered that he would not be facing these ‘stupid proceedings’." The case originated from a reference by a district judge in Shahdara court, where Singhal had allegedly displayed "disruptive and disrespectful behaviour." After being provided with a Legal Aid advocate, the counsel later sought to be discharged from the case, citing non-cooperation from Singhal.

Faced with this direct challenge to its authority and the litigant's recalcitrant attitude, the High Court concluded that it had no option but to employ coercive measures. "Let Bailable Warrants in a sum of ₹10,000 be issued against the respondent/ contemnor through the concerned SHO, returnable on the next date of hearing," the Court ordered, scheduling the next hearing for December 2. The order underscores the non-negotiable expectation of decorum and respect for the judicial process, irrespective of a litigant's personal views on the matter.

Jaya Bachchan's Personality Rights Protected

In a significant order reinforcing the judiciary's role in protecting individual personas from commercial exploitation, the Delhi High Court granted an injunction protecting the personality rights of veteran actor and parliamentarian, Jaya Bachchan. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the order against various websites, e-commerce platforms, and social media accounts that were misusing her name, likeness, and persona.

Appearing for Bachchan, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi highlighted the unauthorized sale of merchandise featuring her images and the creation of infringing AI-generated videos. The suit named major tech and e-commerce giants like Google, Meta, Amazon, and eBay as defendants, seeking to hold them accountable for the infringing content on their platforms.

However, the Court demonstrated a nuanced approach, refusing to pass an injunction against a seller on Amazon offering posters of the 1973 film Abhimaan , which starred Jaya and Amitabh Bachchan. Justice Arora reasoned that the copyright for the film likely resides with its producer, not the actor. "Right now, I am not inclined to do this... You don’t have any copyright in this," the Court remarked. While Sethi argued that personality rights could exist independently of copyright, the Court was not convinced at this stage, noting the material was not "as brazen as other material." This distinction sets a crucial precedent, suggesting a potential hierarchy of infringements and highlighting the complex interplay between copyright and personality rights.

This case marks the fourth time a member of the Bachchan family has approached the Delhi High Court to protect their personality, reflecting a growing trend among public figures to legally shield their identity from unauthorized commercial use in an era of rampant digital and AI-driven content creation.

---

The Contentious Frontier of Speech Regulation: Karnataka's Proposed Bill

The debate over regulating online content took a new turn as Karnataka's Minister for IT, Priyank Kharge, announced that a bill to tackle "fake news" and disinformation is expected to be tabled in the upcoming winter assembly session. Speaking at a policy dialogue organised by Ikigai Law and the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Kharge highlighted the dangers posed by disinformation, especially with the proliferation of "accessible and affordable AI tools."

The proposed legislation aims to "rein in misinformation, disinformation, malinformation and fake news" by naming and shaming perpetrators and also holding platforms that amplify such content "indirectly responsible." While the Minister assured that the government has no intention of curbing free speech, satire, or opinion, legal experts at the event raised serious constitutional concerns.

Manu Kulkarni, Partner at Poovayya & Co, pointed out the primary danger: "the elephant in the room is that the government wants to be the arbiter of truth." He referenced the Bombay High Court's stay on the Central government's fact-check unit as a cautionary tale. Legal experts on the panels argued that the focus should be on prosecuting those who cause "actual harm" rather than creating broad regulations that could stifle democracy.

Alok Kumar Prasanna of the Vidhi Center for Legal Policy framed the issue as an "education system problem," arguing that the real solution lies in fostering critical thinking rather than top-down regulation. Dhanya Rajendran, Co-Founder of The News Minute, warned of the potential for misuse, citing recent instances where FIRs were filed against journalists by the state government. "If the new law is passed, then when an anchor says something against the government, they can immediately file a case," she cautioned. The discussion highlights the deep-seated tension between the state's legitimate interest in curbing harmful content and the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

---

Access to Justice: From Manipur Relief Camps to Institutional Reforms

At a national conference organised by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai delivered a powerful address on strengthening legal aid mechanisms, drawing from his personal experiences and outlining a vision for a more empathetic and efficient system.

Recalling a recent visit to Manipur, CJI Gavai spoke of meeting with both Meitei and Kuki communities in relief camps. He said the judiciary's commitment is to ensure "meaningful access to justice in conflict-affected and remote regions," stating, "we are happy to see smiles on their faces." This experience, he noted, reaffirmed that "legal aid is not merely an act of charity but a moral duty."

The CJI expressed serious concern over administrative lapses that delay payments to legal aid lawyers and paralegal volunteers, calling the situation "deeply demoralising." He emphasized that these individuals operate out of a professional commitment, not charity, and must be treated with dignity and paid on time.

To ensure long-term vision and continuity in NALSA's work, which can be disrupted by changes in leadership, CJI Gavai proposed the creation of an Advisory Committee comprising current and future Executive Chairpersons. This body would "oversee projects with a long-term perspective," helping to institutionalise planning and prevent initiatives from being tied to the limited tenure of one individual. The CJI also launched a digital dashboard for the Legal Aid Defense Counsel System (LADC), designed to enable real-time monitoring and data-driven decision-making, marking a significant step towards a more accountable and structured legal aid framework.

---

Judicial Oversight in Sensitive Probes: The Puran Kumar IPS Suicide Case

The Punjab & Haryana High Court is closely monitoring the investigation into the suicide of IPS officer Y Puran Kumar, who had alleged caste-based discrimination by senior officers in his suicide note. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, hearing a PIL for a CBI probe, has directed the Chandigarh Police SIT to provide an update on the investigation's progress.

"You please tell us what is the latest position... Where have you reached, whether you have named somebody or not," the Court queried, reflecting its intent to ensure a thorough and timely probe into the sensitive allegations. Kumar, who belonged to the Dalit community, had named senior officers in his note, leading to a public outcry.

While the Chandigarh Police and the State of Haryana have opposed transferring the case to the CBI, arguing the current probe is being handled by a neutral agency, the High Court's active questioning indicates a desire for accountability. The Court has not yet formally entertained the PIL but has raised questions about whether the charge of abetment of suicide is made out, suggesting a rigorous judicial examination of the case's merits is underway. The matter remains a focal point for discussions on institutional discrimination and the need for impartial investigations when high-ranking officials are accused.