In an era where digital presence is synonymous with livelihood, the Delhi High Court is currently engaged in a landmark legal exercise to define the precise scope of "personality rights." As celebrities increasingly move to protect their images, names, and personas from unauthorized commercial exploitation, the judiciary is grappling with a fundamental question: When does the protection of an individual’s identity cross the line into stifling public discourse and creative expression?
On October 7, Gautam Bhatia, acting as amicus curiae in the personality rights suit filed by actor Janhvi Kapoor, presented a compelling framework to Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani. His arguments, which will continue on October 8, seek to prevent the judiciary from becoming an instrument for mass censorship, advocating instead for a nuanced, objective approach to how celebrities and private citizens alike can claim ownership over their digital identity.
The Core Argument: Commercialization vs. Deception
The central premise of Bhatia’s submission is that the mere commercialization of a celebrity’s image should not, in and of itself, trigger a court-ordered takedown of online content.
"Commercialization plus something else often will be a reason to injunct," Bhatia argued before the bench. "Mere commercialization on its own may not be it."
By "something else," Bhatia refers to the legal doctrine of passing off. This occurs when a third party uses a celebrity’s likeness in a way that causes "deception," creates a "false impression of advertisement," or implies a non-existent "association" with a product or brand. According to the amicus, courts should strictly rely on established pillars—passing off, copyright, and trademark law—to adjudicate commercial disputes.
For all other claims, Bhatia argued, the court must fall back on the bedrock principles of privacy, dignity, and autonomy. These are universal rights that extend to every human being, regardless of their fame or social standing.
Chronology and Legal Context
The ongoing hearings represent a consolidation of several high-profile suits, including those brought by actors Janhvi Kapoor and Vivek Oberoi, as well as Aaradhya Bachchan. The court is tasked with establishing a consistent legal test that balances the rights of famous individuals against the interests of content creators, fans, and the digital economy.
Earlier in the day, Rohan Alva, the amicus curiae for Vivek Oberoi’s case, concluded his submissions. The court is now in the process of synthesizing these expert opinions before opening the floor for legal representatives of major social media platforms to present their perspectives on platform liability and content moderation.
Parsing the "Personality" Paradox
A recurring theme in the arguments is the rejection of a "one-size-fits-all" personality right. Bhatia emphasized that the legal concept of a "personality right" is a composite of disparate interests. Some of these are protected by specific statutes, while others remain subject to judicial interpretation.
Who is a Celebrity?
One of the most provocative segments of the hearing focused on the definition of "celebrity status." Bhatia argued that focusing on the status of the individual is fundamentally the wrong inquiry. He illustrated this by citing the "accidental celebrity"—a private individual who goes viral for a fleeting moment, such as a fan captured on camera at a sports event.
"In the age of virality, [celebrity status] becomes really a very fluid kind of a category," Bhatia noted. He proposed that the law should grant every person the same "starting rights" over their identity. Under this framework, the commercial value of an image would be a factual variable to be tested, not a baseline for eligibility for protection.
The Myth of Privacy Loss
A critical point of contention is whether individuals forfeit their right to privacy by choosing a public career. Bhatia was categorical: the act of monetizing aspects of one’s life does not constitute a total waiver of privacy.
"The right to privacy is not merely the right to seclusion," he stated, adding that it encompasses the power to control the dissemination of personal information. He cautioned the court that "public interest" is not synonymous with "what the public is interested in." To demonstrate this, he posited the scenario of a celebrity attending a friend’s private wedding. While the public might be voyeuristically interested in the event, the dissemination of unauthorized images from such a private sphere remains a breach of the individual’s autonomy.
Implications for Content Creators
For the burgeoning creator economy, these hearings hold significant weight. Bhatia used the example of creators who stitch together publicly available footage of public figures—such as a montage of MS Dhoni set to trending audio—to earn ad revenue.
Bhatia argued that such content should be protected unless it crosses specific legal thresholds:
- Copyright Infringement: If the underlying footage is protected intellectual property, the creator is in breach.
- False Endorsement: If the creator integrates product placement in a way that misleads the audience into believing the celebrity is endorsing that product, it constitutes passing off.
He drew a parallel to the "Jackie Shroff" case, where the court wisely refused to block "thug life" videos. In that instance, the court acknowledged that such content, while utilizing a celebrity’s image, serves as a primary source of livelihood for many creators and does not necessarily harm the celebrity’s reputation or commercial interests.
The "Marketplace of Ideas" and Defamation
Addressing the issue of defamation, Bhatia advocated for judicial restraint. He argued that courts should be wary of granting injunctions in defamation cases unless it is patently obvious that the defendant has no viable legal defense.
"Ultimately, you do not want to choke off the marketplace of ideas at the outset through an injunction," he warned. In his view, if a case is not a clear-cut instance of malicious falsehood, the appropriate remedy is not censorship, but monetary damages awarded at the conclusion of a trial.
Institutional Responsibilities: Platforms and the Law
The hearing also touched upon the role of intermediaries. Rohan Alva referenced the Ajay Devgn case, which suggested that individuals should first exhaust the complaint mechanisms provided by the IT Rules, 2021, before approaching the courts for emergency relief.
Justice Bhambhani expressed skepticism regarding the efficacy of this process, noting that Section 79 of the IT Act protects intermediaries only if they remain neutral. If a platform begins adjudicating complex disputes over personality rights, it risks losing its "safe harbor" status. Both amici acknowledged the complexity, noting that platforms are not designed to be the arbiters of truth in legal disputes over identity.
Defenses and Future Outlook
As the court nears a decision, the list of permissible defenses against personality rights claims is being refined. These include:
- Fair Comment: Allowing for critique and satire.
- Public Interest: Protecting speech that contributes to legitimate public discourse.
- Non-Commercial Fan Work: Distinguishing between genuine, hobbyist appreciation and commercial exploitation.
Justice Bhambhani’s lighthearted query—asking what a fan club of a lawyer would look like if it couldn’t use his face—highlighted the absurdity of over-regulating fan culture. It served as a reminder that the law must remain tethered to the realities of human interaction in the digital age.
As the proceedings continue, the Delhi High Court’s eventual ruling will likely serve as a foundational precedent for personality rights in India. By moving toward a more objective, evidence-based approach, the court aims to protect the dignity of individuals without infringing upon the creative freedoms that define the modern internet. For now, the "something else"—the line between legitimate expression and deceptive commercialization—remains the focal point of a struggle that will determine the future of digital identity.
