The actress got part of what she asked for: an order to take down obscene and sexually explicit material. What she did not get was a sweeping injunction against any use of her images, and the reason lies in a line the judge was unwilling to cross without proof. A public figure cannot have every image of herself vanish from the internet on the strength of a personality-rights plea; there must be evidence that someone is monetising her identity. Obscene content must go, the Court held, but for the rest, where the line falls is a question it is still working out.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction directing the takedown of obscene and sexually explicit content posted against actress Meenakshi Chaudhary, while declining to pass a blanket injunction protecting her personality rights against other uses at the ex parte stage [Meenakshi Chaudhary v. John Doe and Others].
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani passed the order, making clear that a blanket injunction of the kind sought could not be granted without the plaintiff establishing that her personality was being commercially exploited.
What the Court granted, and what it withheld
During the hearing, the Court pressed the actress’s counsel to demonstrate how the defendants were using her name for commercial purposes and to make money. Where there was no allegation of copyright infringement and the content was said to be AI-generated, the judge observed, the plaintiff had to be specific:
“What is the evidence that they made money on your personality? When there is no allegation of any copyright infringement, when you say these are AI generated, then you have to be specific.”
Justice Bhambhani was categorical that he was against granting blanket injunctions in personality-rights matters, and that it had to be proved that someone was making money from the use of a person’s images. He framed the difficulty in terms of the balance between an individual’s rights and the fact that the plaintiff is a public personality:
“If you don’t want anyone to use your photos, then you say. I will pass an order that no one can use your photos and then every image will disappear from the internet… If there is something vulgar or obscene, it will have to go but you are public personality. Where do we draw the line? A line is to be drawn. But where do we draw the line?”
The Court also observed that while not all, some parties approach the Court misusing the personality-rights plea, which was a further reason the issue required a proper adjudication of the law. Accordingly, it granted relief only to the extent of the obscene content.
A larger question being worked out
The order is part of a wider exercise. The suit has been listed for September 22, when the Court will hear it alongside similar personality-rights suits filed by actors Janhvi Kapoor and Vivek Oberoi. The Court is adjudicating a larger legal question in personality-rights matters, and has appointed amici curiae to assist it.
The context is a wave of such litigation before the Court. It has, in recent matters, protected the personality rights of a long list of public figures across cinema, sport, business, politics and public life, and coordinate benches have passed similar orders for others; further suits, including by other well-known actors, have been filed. That volume is precisely why the Court appears keen to settle the governing principles rather than issue sweeping injunctions case by case.
Why it matters
The order is significant less for the relief it grants than for the boundary it draws. Two distinct wrongs tend to be bundled together in personality-rights suits: on one side, obscene, sexually explicit or defamatory content, often now AI-generated, which injures dignity and reputation and which courts readily order taken down; on the other, the unauthorised commercial exploitation of a celebrity’s name, image or likeness, the classic personality- or publicity-rights claim, which protects the economic value a public figure has built in their identity. The Court’s insistence on separating the two is the heart of the order.
For the first category, the Court had little hesitation: obscene material must go. For the second, it asked for what the publicity-rights claim actually requires, evidence that the defendants were monetising the plaintiff’s personality, and declined, at the ex parte stage and without such proof, to hand down an injunction so wide that, as the judge put it, every image of a public figure could vanish from the internet. That reluctance reflects a genuine tension: a public personality lives partly in the public domain, and an over-broad injunction risks sweeping up legitimate uses, commentary, criticism, news and fair reference, along with the infringing ones.
The candid acknowledgement that the plea is sometimes misused, and the decision to hear this suit with those of other public figures and with the aid of amici, signal that the Court is treating this as an occasion to lay down principles rather than to grant relief reflexively. Personality-rights law in India has developed rapidly and largely through interim orders in individual celebrity suits; a considered articulation of where the line falls, between protecting dignity and identity and preserving legitimate public use, would bring welcome clarity to a fast-moving field. Nothing has been finally decided; the interim order protects the actress against obscene content, and the larger questions await the hearing.
Case Title: Meenakshi Chaudhary v. John Doe and Others
Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Status: Ex parte ad interim injunction granted for takedown of obscene and sexually explicit content; blanket injunction declined at this stage. Listed for September 22 with connected personality-rights suits; amici curiae appointed. Larger legal question undecided.