Bollywood actor and MP Jaya Bachchan has moved the Delhi High Court seeking protection of her personality rights and publicity rights against the unauthorized use of her name, morphed images, and fake merchandise circulating online.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday heard a lawsuit filed by Bollywood actor and Member of Parliament Jaya Bachchan, who has sought protection of her personality and publicity rights against the unauthorized use of her name and photographs across online platforms and merchandise.
The case was heard by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, with Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi appearing for the actress.
During the proceedings, Sethi informed the Court that Defendant No. 1 had published morphed images of Jaya Bachchan, while Defendant No. 2 was selling merchandise using her images without authorization. He further pointed out that Defendants 4 and 5 were also involved in the sale of infringing products, though their identities remained unclear.
The petition reportedly seeks directions to restrain multiple online platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, Google, and eBay, from permitting the sale or circulation of content that misuses the actress’s persona.
The bench observed that many of the disputed images appeared to be movie posters, and questioned how the plaintiff could claim copyright ownership in such materials.
“These appear to be movie posters. How can you claim copyright in them?”
the Court asked.
In response, Sethi argued that the issue was not about copyright in the film but rather the unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s image and likeness, which infringes upon her personality rights.
“They use the plaintiff’s image without authorization,”
Sethi submitted.
Sethi also highlighted that certain Instagram pages were using morphed images and fake accounts impersonating Jaya Bachchan, further damaging her reputation. The Court sought clarification regarding various defendants, noting procedural issues with the filings.
“Facebook is Defendant 62 and YouTube is Defendant 64,”
Sethi stated, when asked about the specific defendants.
Justice Arora inquired whether notice had been served to Mr. Varun Pathak, counsel for Facebook, and noted multiple clerical errors in the plaint.
“There are a lot of errors in the plaints; please file corrected versions within two days,”
the Court directed.
The judge added that the order would be issued once the corrected applications were filed, instructing the petitioner’s counsel to ensure compliance and to serve notice on counsel for Facebook, Google, and eBay.
ALSO READ: Hrithik Roshan vs AI Deepfakes: Delhi High Court Orders to Protect Personality Rights
Case Title:
JAYA BACHCHAN V/s BOLLYWOOD BUBBLE TELEVISION & ORS.
CS(COMM)- 1194/2025
READ LIVE COVERAGE
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Personality Rights
