Today, On 17th September, The Delhi High Court has issued summons to defendants 2 to 10 in Karan Johar’s personality rights case and granted an injunction. Defendants 11 to 16 were impleaded only for compliance, and no summons were issued to them.
The Delhi High Court resumed hearing in filmmaker and television host Karan Johar’s case concerning the protection of his personality rights.
The matter came up before Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.
During the hearing, the court expressed difficulty in going through the large number of documents submitted, noting that not everything related to Johar.
The bench observed,
“Frustrating to go through documents submitted; not all context relates to Johar. Post by post injunction may be difficult.”
Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, appearing for Karan Johar, argued that as a public figure, Johar has often been targeted online through memes and comments that go beyond fair criticism.
Rao said,
“Johar, as a celebrity, faces public ridicule and monetized diatribes for certain images/comments. Fair comment is acceptable, but extreme ridicule affecting him is non-negotiable. Some limits must be set despite hundreds of posts.”
He pointed out that while some memes may appear humorous, others crossed the line.
He submitted,
“See what is on the right side funny memes. The next one is an allegation that I indulge in nepotism,”
The court, while examining some of the images presented, noted that a few were not even identifiable. Justice Arora told the counsel,
“I will give you that right you respond to them and then we will take it forward.”
After considering the submissions, the High Court passed directions, stating,
“Summons issued to Def no. 2-10. Summons are not being issued to 11-16 as they are being impleaded for compliance. Injunction to be granted.”
Earlier, On 15th September, Filmmaker and TV personality Karan Johar approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights, following similar actions taken by Aishwarya Rai and Abhishek Bachchan.
He alleged that his name is being exploited to generate funds.
He stated,
“These are websites where my photos are downloaded. Various pages on various [social media] platforms are in my name,”
Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, responded in court, arguing that many of the comments flagged in Johar’s lawsuit are not defamatory.
Advocate Varun Pathak emphasized that issuing a blanket injunction could lead to excessive litigation. He said,
“These are ordinary people having comments and having discussion. Now to drag them to Court for making an ordinary joke,”
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora concurred, noting that not all fan pages can be subject to blocking or removal.
Justice Arora remarked,
“Mr. Rao, you have to look at two things, one is disparagement, which is different from memes. Memes are not necessarily disparaging. Then somebody is selling merchandise. Third is your domain name. Please specifically identify it, the Court will consider it. I think Mr. Pathak is right, it cannot be every fan page. We cannot have an open-ended injunction,”
Rao argued that Johar has the right to control the existence of his fan pages.
He asserted,
“There is a line between making fun…The platform becomes responsible. The more the memes, the more viral it is, the more money you make…I have a right to ensure that nobody uses my persona, or my face, characteristics without my consent. The fact that I chose to look the other way does not give any carte blanche to others,”
After deliberating on the case, the Court suggested it might issue take-down orders for specific pages. If similar pages appear later, Johar can bring them to the attention of the social media platform, which may take action.
Case Title: Karan Johar v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
