The Delhi High Court said that public figures must be ready to face criticism, satire, and public comments unless it is humiliating or defamatory. The Court also warned that personality rights cases cannot be used to seek blanket removal of news reports and online content.
The Delhi High Court on Monday made important remarks while hearing a personality rights case filed by Patanjali’s Acharya Balkrishna. The Court observed that public figures should be prepared to face criticism, jokes, and public comments, and the Court cannot stop people from making fun of public figures unless the content is humiliating, defamatory, or harms their reputation.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made this observation when Balkrishna approached the Court seeking removal of several news reports, articles, and caricatures published by media organisations such as India Today, Economic Times, and others. The Court explained that in a democracy, public figures are often discussed, criticised, and even mocked, and such expression cannot be stopped unless it crosses the legal limit of defamation or humiliation.
During the hearing, Justice Gedela said,
“You have newspapers, you have cartoonists. They do make caricatures, they do make fun of people, right? Now, whether that can be taken now? If you are going to be a public figure, please be ready for brickbats too. People will make fun. We can’t stop that, unless it is disparaging or something that puts your respect down or humiliating,”
the Court said.
The case also involved Google, whose counsel argued that the kind of directions sought by Balkrishna were very serious and could have dangerous consequences for freedom of speech and media reporting. Google’s counsel told the Court that Balkrishna was asking for removal of several news reports and commentary, including reports related to adverse observations made by the Supreme Court against Balkrishna and Patanjali.
Google also pointed out that the media organisations whose articles were sought to be removed, such as India Today and Economic Times, were not even made parties in the case. According to Google, such personality rights cases should not be used as a way to indirectly target social media platforms and intermediaries when the actual content is published by news organisations. The counsel clearly told the Court that such suits cannot be used to wage a proxy battle against intermediaries.
Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar, appearing for Balkrishna, told the Court that Balkrishna was willing to make a statement that any content connected with the Supreme Court judgment should not be taken down.
However, he argued that Balkrishna has a very large following not only in cities but also in rural areas, and many people may not have the technical knowledge to identify whether a video or audio clip is real or fake. He argued that because of this, fake content, deepfakes, morphed videos, and artificial voice recordings could mislead people and harm Balkrishna’s reputation.
ALSO READ: Disparaging Dabur Chyawanprash Ads: Delhi HC Orders Patanjali to Remove Advertisements
The Court also examined one of the news reports that Balkrishna wanted removed, which was a Times of India report stating that several fake Patanjali websites were under scanner. The Court questioned how such news reports could be removed without hearing the media organisations that published them.
The Court made it clear that a personality rights case cannot be treated like a public interest litigation where a person makes very broad and general allegations against many parties without properly including them in the case.
The Court then said,
“Can we direct them [news organisations] to take this down behind their backs? This is not a public interest litigation. Even in public interest litigation we make sure that the parties are before us. You have made a very omnibus kind of allegations against everybody,”
the Court said.
The Court further told Balkrishna that he must clearly specify which exact content or material he wants removed, instead of making broad and general requests. The Court said it would consider the relief only after the requests are properly narrowed down and specific parties are included in the case.
After hearing the arguments, Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar told the Court that he would take instructions from his client and return with clearer details. The Delhi High Court then adjourned the matter to Tuesday for further hearing.
This case is important because it deals with the balance between personality rights, freedom of speech, media reporting, and the role of intermediaries like Google. The Court’s remarks show that while the law protects individuals from defamation and humiliation, public figures must also be ready to face public criticism, satire, and commentary, which are part of free speech in a democratic society.
Click Here to Read More Reports on Acharya Balkrishna
