“A stand-alone claim for personality rights — accompanied by a request for a broad-ranging John Doe/Ashok Kumar injunction — is a claim unknown to Indian law,” Gautam Bhatia wrote in his written submissions to the Delhi High Court (HC) (para 46).
Bhatia is the amicus curiae, a lawyer appointed by the court to advise it, in actor Janhvi Kapoor’s personality rights suit. He submitted a 22-page brief, dated October 2, 2026, and argued it before Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani on October 7 and 8.
A John Doe or “Ashok Kumar” injunction is a court order against unnamed people that allows a plaintiff to target content posted by anyone online. Bhatia argued that “personality rights” encompass several distinct legal claims and that courts should separate these claims in each suit before blocking any content.
What is the case about?
Kapoor’s suit, first heard in August 2026, cited nearly 6,884 web links that allegedly violated her personality rights. The court declined to block all of them, remarking that such broad relief could be misused and that “it is going out of hand.” It limited temporary protection to obscene or pornographic content, content that directly makes money from her persona, and content that uses her name and likeness to sell merchandise.
In September, Justice Bhambhani appointed Bhatia as amicus in Kapoor’s suit. Rohan Alva was already assisting the court as amicus in actor Vivek Oberoi’s suit. The court is hearing both suits, along with Aaradhya Bachchan’s, to define the scope of personality rights. MediaNama tracks personality rights cases in Indian courts in a running list.
Alva and Bhatia concluded their oral arguments on October 8. Kapoor’s counsel, Asav Rajan, began responding on October 9.
What does the brief propose?
- Separate claims: Personality rights are “a bundle of legal interests that the law protects in different ways and with distinct remedies (and, on occasion, refuses to protect at all)” (para 3).
- Burden on plaintiffs: People filing suits must spell out each claim, and courts can refuse sweeping orders when they fail to do so.
- Defamation: Courts should rarely block content before a full trial.
- Privacy: Public figures retain their right to privacy, although the public’s genuine interest in knowing can override it.
- Commercial use: Courts should protect a celebrity’s image through laws against misleading the public and limit property-style protection to copyright and trademark.
- Creators and fan work: The use of publicly available images should be allowed unless it misleads the public, is defamatory, or violates another law.
- Voice and mannerisms: Courts should not use personality rights to protect elements that copyright law deliberately excludes.
How should courts examine a claim?
A personality rights claim “does not refer to a single cause of action that triggers a single remedy (such as a dynamic injunction),” Bhatia wrote (para 3). A dynamic injunction allows plaintiffs to flag new links after a court order without returning to court.
He proposed four questions to be asked in order (para 5):
- “What are the legal interests being claimed? or what is being protected?”
- “What is the nature of the harm that is alleged? or what is it being protected from?”
- “What remedies does the law contemplate in cases of such harm?, or how is it being protected?”
- “Are there any countervailing interests or rights that preclude the remedy from being granted?”
The fourth question asks whether another right, such as free speech, outweighs the claim.
He pointed to the Delhi HC’s August 2026 order in actor Khushi Kapoor’s case, which recorded her claims as separate categories involving privacy, copyright, trademark, misleading the public, and misuse of her identity.
Bhatia divided the claims into two groups: non-commercial claims, which protect reputation and privacy, and commercial claims, which protect the money-making value of a person’s image. He cited the Delhi HC’s ruling in the case filed by actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s father to block a film based on his son’s life as an example of this distinction.
When should courts block allegedly defamatory content?
Personality rights suits are civil cases, so the defences available under civil defamation law also apply. These include truth, fair comment, and privilege.
Courts should not block content early in a case “unless, on a prima facie reading, it is virtually clear from the record that the defendant has no meaningful defence they could invoke at trial” (para 9). “Prima facie” means at first glance. The rule comes from the English case Bonnard vs Perryman, which the Delhi HC adopted in Tata Sons vs Greenpeace and the Bombay HC applied in a case involving the National Stock Exchange and Moneylife.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle in 2024 in Bloomberg vs Zee Entertainment:
“Courts should not grant ex-parte injunctions except in exceptional cases where the defence advanced by the respondent would undoubtedly fail at trial” (para 10).
An “ex parte” injunction is an order passed without hearing the other side.
If a suit combines defamation and privacy claims, “an omnibus injunction will be over-broad, and harm free speech interests,” Bhatia wrote (para 11). He noted that courts have treated some personality rights suits as defamation cases, citing the Delhi HC’s order in politician Raghav Chadha’s case.
Bhatia illustrated this with a news item claiming that a person “goes around stealing pet chihuahuas in his spare time.” This amounts to defamation, and whether the person is a celebrity “is irrelevant,” he wrote (para 11).
Do public figures keep their right to privacy?
In its 1994 ruling in R Rajagopal, the Supreme Court held that people can sue private individuals for breaching their privacy. It added that the “position may, however, be different, if a person voluntarily thrusts himself into controversy” (para 13).
In Khushwant Singh vs Maneka Gandhi, the Delhi HC held that the remedy for such a breach “would thus be by way of damages and not an order of restraint” (para 14). The same ruling held that courts should not block reporting on public figures based on material that is already public.
Bhatia drew two points from these rulings:
- Compensation first: Courts usually award damages for privacy breaches, although they have sometimes blocked content, as in cases involving Phoolan Devi and actor Shilpa Shetty.
- Narrower privacy for public figures: “This is not to say that public figures do not have a right to privacy, but that its scope and contours vary accordingly” (para 15).
Courts in Europe and South Africa consider whether the public has a genuine interest in the information, Bhatia noted. The European Court of Human Rights found no public interest in paparazzi photographs of Princess Caroline von Hannover. In South Africa, one court found no public interest in photographs of two lawyers in an intimate moment, while another found a public interest in a minister’s drinking binge while in hospital.
He gave three examples, all set at a private wedding (para 16):
- A celebrity photographed without consent: This gives rise to a privacy claim, since there is no “public interest” in “what a public figure does in their downtime.”
- An ordinary guest in the same photograph: This also gives rise to a privacy claim, based on “their privacy right to control the dissemination of personal information about them.”
- The face of an anti-smoking campaign photographed smoking “a Sherlock Holmes-style pipe”: The claim fails because the public has an interest in knowing about “this inconsistency between the ‘celebrity’s’ public and private stands on a vital issue.”
Is a celebrity’s image their property?
The US “right of publicity” — a person’s right over the commercial value of their image — is usually traced to the 1953 US case Haelan Laboratories vs Topps Chewing Gum. Bhatia noted, citing legal scholar Jennifer Rothman, that Haelan concerned a contractual clause and a New York statute and “has often been misread.” The Delhi HC relied on the case in Titan Industries vs Ramkumar Jewellers.
In the Daler Mehndi case, DM Entertainment vs Baby Gift House, the Delhi HC described the wrong as “the unauthorized appropriation of an individual’s very persona which would result in unearned commercial gain” (para 18). Bhatia noted that Justice SK Kaul’s opinion in the Supreme Court’s 2017 privacy ruling, Puttaswamy, supports this approach.
He identified “two lines of jurisprudence that are somewhat in tension with each other” (para 22):
- Image as property: Titan Industries, which “seeks to incorporate American RoP doctrine lock, stock, and barrel into Indian law.”
- Image as part of dignity: The Sushant Singh Rajput case and Puttaswamy, which are “more circumspect.”
Property can be sold, transferred, and inherited, while rights grounded in dignity cannot. The Daler Mehndi ruling “occupies an ambiguous position,” Bhatia wrote (para 20). It grounded the right in personal autonomy but also accepted that Mehndi had transferred his rights to a company, a position consistent with treating the right as property.
In Digital Collectibles vs Galactus Funware, a case concerning the use of cricketers’ names on digital trading cards for fantasy games, the Delhi HC attempted to reconcile the two approaches. It found that:
- In the US: The right exists only under the laws of some states, with exceptions and a free speech defence for material already in the public domain.
- In the UK: Courts do not recognise the right and protect the same interest through passing off, a legal claim against misleading the public about who endorses or backs a product.
- In India: Courts have not treated the right as absolute, and their rulings are best understood as being based on passing off.
The ruling concluded that “the right of publicity cannot be infringed merely on the basis of a celebrity being identified or the defendant making commercial gain” (para 23).
Bhatia urged the court to follow this approach. Drawing on a forthcoming paper by Anupriya Dhonchak and Professor Dev Gangjee, he gave five reasons against treating an image as property:
- It favours celebrities: A property-based right “inevitably gravitates towards a celebrity-oriented right” (para 25).
- It sidelines free speech: Property-based reasoning grants an absolute right “regardless of countervailing considerations,” while other legal claims require proof of actual harm before courts intervene.
- Its limits are unclear: Whether the right can be sold or inherited remains unresolved, creating a risk of overly broad court orders.
- Other laws already work: Existing legal claims can protect the same commercial interests.
- Most countries reject it: Apart from some US states, most jurisdictions do not treat a person’s image as property.
He illustrated this with a YouTuber who stitches publicly available clips of a celebrity into a “Captain for a reason!!!” montage and earns advertising revenue. “Even though the YouTuber achieves commercial revenue, this is not a breach of RoP,” he wrote, since there is no false information and no confusion among viewers (para 26).
When does using a celebrity’s image become unlawful?
Passing off occurs “when a misrepresentation regarding an individual leads to confusion in the minds of the public, and harms that individual’s long-established goodwill” (para 27). It covers three overlapping harms:
- False endorsement: Using a person’s likeness to promote a product they have not endorsed or disagree with.
- False advertising: Trading unfairly on a person’s name or reputation.
- Dilution of goodwill: Damaging the reputation a person has built over time.
Bhatia asked the court to require proof that the public was confused. He cited singer Sonu Nigam’s case, in which the Bombay HC granted an injunction based on “extensive proof of deception” but allowed the defendant to continue using the name “Sonu Nigam Singh” on X because it caused no confusion.
He then set out the following rule:
“Non-commercial or commercial uses of the publicly available aspects of an individual’s image, which do not amount to passing off (and are not defamatory or otherwise illegal), are to be permitted” (para 30).
If the YouTuber adds a soft drink logo to suggest that the celebrity endorses the product, the celebrity can sue, he noted.
Can celebrities protect their voice and mannerisms?
Courts should decide copyright and trademark claims under the respective laws, Bhatia argued. Section 38 of the Copyright Act protects performers’ rights. It “indicates a statutory intention to cover performances but, equally, a statutory intention to exclude elements such as voice or mannerisms that fall below the threshold of a ‘performance’” (para 32).
Using personality rights to protect these elements “would, in such cases, attempt to achieve indirectly – through judicial remedies – what statute law has denies directly,” he wrote (para 32). A catchphrase strongly associated with a person may still qualify for trademark protection.
Bhatia cited the US “human cannonball” case, in which a TV channel broadcast a performer’s entire act. He argued that Section 38 would cover such a case in India.
What remedies should courts grant?
Courts can determine the appropriate remedy only after separating the claims, since “the nature of the interests and harms will determine the nature of the remedy” (para 33). For defamation, the remedy “except in extraordinary circumstances” is compensation after trial, “rather than a judicial restraining order, or a generic (static or dynamic) injunction” (para 34).
Can courts block speech before trial?
Article 19(2) of the Constitution allows restrictions on free speech only on specified grounds, such as public order or decency, and only through a law. “It remains unsettled whether prior judicial restraint (in the form of an ad-interim injunction) constitutes a ‘law’ under Article 19(2),” Bhatia wrote (para 36). He argued that courts should therefore exercise caution when personality rights claims affect free speech.
Advertising and other commercial speech receive less protection following the Supreme Court’s 1995 ruling in Tata Press vs MTNL, while misleading commercial speech receives no protection. Non-commercial speech implicated in personality rights claims “is often at the core of the Article 19(1)(a) guarantee,” Bhatia wrote, citing satire, parody, and lampooning as examples (para 38). He cited the Delhi HC’s ruling protecting Greenpeace’s parody of Tata’s trademark and a South African ruling protecting a parody of a beer brand.
Are fan pages protected?
Fan work, including “fan websites, fan-generated content such as fan-fiction, fan art, or meme pages,” deserves free speech protection, Bhatia argued, except where it (para 40):
- Turns into impersonation: For example, posing as a person to suggest that they endorse a product they have publicly rejected.
- Primarily monetises copyrighted work without permission.
- Breaches privacy or other laws: For example, by revealing private information or posting defamatory or obscene content.
Treating images as property “risks presumptively outlawing fan work, and censoring a major aspect of modern-day creative culture,” he wrote (para 41).
What about creators who earn from celebrity content?
Bhatia identified “a third category of speech that sits at the intersection of commercial and non-commercial speech” (para 42). He quoted the Delhi HC’s ruling in actor Jackie Shroff’s case, which refused to block YouTube videos spoofing his interviews:
“Blocking these videos might have far-reaching consequences for this vibrant community. More critically, it could set a precedent that stifles freedom of expression” (para 42).
Such content involves creators’ right to earn a living as well as their right to free speech, Bhatia said. Courts should weigh these rights at trial “rather than being injuncted at the outset” (para 43).
What does the brief ask the court to do?
“It is therefore the Plaintiff’s responsibility, while filing the plaint, to disentangle a personality rights claim into the constituent elements listed above, establish each one separately, and seek the appropriate remedies in each case (whether damages or an injunction). Courts may refrain from granting sweeping injunctions upon personality rights claims where this has not been done” (para 47).
A “plaint” is the document that initiates a civil suit. On the question of property rights, Bhatia concluded that “the property framework ought to be limited to existing, statutory intellectual property rights (copyright and trademark), and not extended beyond into the domain of common law” (para 50).
Cases cited in the brief
Supreme Court
- Bloomberg Television Production Services vs Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd, 2024 INSC 255
- Cadila Healthcare Ltd vs Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd, 2001 (5) SCC 73
- Gobind vs State of MP, (1975) 2 SCC 148
- Justice (Retd) KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1
- Kaushal Kishore vs State of UP, (2023) 4 SCC 1
- R Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632
- Tata Press vs MTNL, (1995) 5 SCC 139
Delhi High Court
- DM Entertainment Pvt Ltd vs Baby Gift House, CS(OS) No 893/2002 (April 29, 2010)
- Devi Prasad Shetty vs Medicine Me, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8565
- Digital Collectibles vs Galactus Funware Technology Pvt Ltd, 2023 DHC 2796
- Jackie Shroff vs The Peppy Store and Ors, 2024 DHC 4046
- Khushi Kapoor vs Ashok Kumar/John Doe and Ors, CS (Comm) 869/2026, order dated August 12, 2026
- Khushwant Singh vs Maneka Gandhi, AIR 2000 DEL 58
- Krishna Kishore Singh vs Sarla A Saraogi, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3146 and 2023-DHC-4631
- Phoolan Devi vs Shekhar Kapoor, 57 (1995) DLT 154
- Raghav Chadha vs Ashok Kumar John Doe and Ors, 2026:DHC:5252
- Tata Sons vs Greenpeace International, (2011) 178 DLT 705 and (2011) 45 PTC 275 (Del)
- Titan Industries vs Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del)
Other High Courts
- Arijit Singh vs Codible Ventures LLP, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2445 (Bombay)
- National Stock Exchange of India vs Moneywise Media Pvt Ltd, 904-NMS-1220-15 (Bombay)
- R Rajagopal vs J Jayalalitha, AIR 2006 Mad 312 (Madras)
- Shilpa S Shetty vs Magna Publications, AIR 2001 Bom 176 (Bombay)
- Shilpa Shetty Kundra vs Getoutlive.in, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5486 (Bombay)
- Sonu Nigam vs Sonu Nigam and Ors, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2667 (Bombay)
- T Rangaraj vs Joy Crizildaa, OA No 948 of 2025 (Madras)
Foreign courts
- Bonnard vs Perryman (England)
- Haelan Laboratories vs Topps Chewing Gum, 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953) (US)
- Laugh It Off Promotions CC vs South African Breweries International, (2005) 8 BCLR 743 (CC) (South Africa)
- Prinsloo vs RCP Media Ltd, 2003 (4) SA 456 (South Africa)
- Tshabalala-Msimang vs Makhanya, [2007] ZAGPHC 161 (South Africa)
- Von Hannover vs Germany, (2005) 40 EHRR 1 (European Court of Human Rights)
- Zacchini vs Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co, 433 US 562 (1977) (US)
Other sources cited in the brief
- Anupriya Dhonchak and Dev Gangjee, Image Rights in India: the Impropriety of a Proprietary Drift, in Asia-Pacific Property Law, Vol 1 (Hart, 2027, forthcoming)
- Aakanksha Kumar, Celebrity Personality Rights Protection versus Public Right of Free Speech, PhD thesis, National Law University, Jodhpur
- Aakanksha Kumar, Flower Nahi, Fire: Delhi HC Waters the Wrong Rights (Again!), SpicyIP, April 23, 2026
- Jennifer E Rothman, The Right of Publicity (Harvard University Press, 2018)
- Rebecca Tushnet, A Mask that Eats into the Face: Images and the Right of Publicity, Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts (2015)
- Gautam Bhatia, Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Freedom of Speech under the Indian Constitution (OUP, 2015)
Read more:
- Celebrities can’t use personality rights to block coverage of wrongdoing: Delhi HC in Janhvi Kapoor case
- Delhi HC to clarify personality rights through Janhvi Kapoor, Aaradhya Bachchan and Vivek Oberoi suits
The post Explained: What amicus Gautam Bhatia’s brief asks the Delhi HC to change in personality rights cases appeared first on MEDIANAMA.