Delhi HC to Pass Interim Order on Arjun Kapoor's Personality Rights Plea

The Delhi High Court will pass an interim order on Arjun Kapoor's plea to protect his personality rights from online misuse. The actor's lawyer argued that defendants are using his identity without permission, including for sexually explicit AI-generated content and fake news. The Court observed that public figures face greater scrutiny but defamatory material can be addressed under existing laws. The order is expected to reference similar cases involving Jubin Nautiyal, Vivek Oberoi, and Hrithik Roshan.

Key Points: Delhi HC to Rule on Arjun Kapoor’s Personality Rights

  • Delhi HC to pass interim order on Arjun Kapoor's personality rights plea
  • Content includes AI-generated porn, morphing with animals, and fake news
  • Google and Meta named as defendants in the case
  • Court noted public figures face more scrutiny but defamatory content can be addressed
2 min read

Delhi HC to pass interim order on Arjun Kapoor's plea seeking personality rights protection

Delhi High Court will pass interim order on Arjun Kapoor's plea to protect personality rights against AI-generated misuse, including fake porn and merchandising.

"The Court also remarked that a common man does not come to court for personality rights - Delhi High Court"

New Delhi, April 29

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday said it will pass an interim order on a plea filed by Bollywood actor Arjun Kapoor seeking protection of his personality rights against alleged misuse of his identity online.

The matter was heard by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.

Advocate Pravin Anand, appearing for Kapoor, told the Court that several defendants were using the actor's persona without permission. He said some were involved in unauthorised bookings, while others were engaged in merchandising.

The plea also names social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook, along with tech companies Google LLC and Meta Platforms.

Anand submitted that the content includes sexually explicit material, fake news, and pornographic depictions involving Kapoor. He added that many of these were AI-generated and morphed images, including visuals showing the actor merged with animals and even selling golgappas. He argued that such content is neither satire nor humour and goes beyond acceptable limits.

He also relied on similar court orders in cases involving Jubin Nautiyal, Vivek Oberoi, and Acharya Balakrishnan.

Counsel for Google referred to the mechanism followed in the case of Hrithik Roshan, where plaintiffs can report objectionable content to platforms, which then review it.

The Court, however, said not everything can be removed just because it involves a public figure. It observed that people in public life are bound to face such situations, though content that is defamatory or disparaging can be addressed.

The Court also remarked that "a common man does not come to court for personality rights," noting that public figures face greater scrutiny. It cautioned against taking an overly broad approach, referring to the principles laid down in DM Entertainment Pvt Ltd v Baby Gift House.

After hearing all sides, the Court said it will pass a detailed interim order soon.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
Good that Delhi HC is taking this seriously. AI-generated porn and fake news are serious issues—not just for celebrities but for ordinary people too. The court's observation that "a common man does not come to court for personality rights" is so true. Most of us don't have the resources to fight these battles. Hope this sets a precedent for stronger digital protections for everyone.
M
Michael C
I wonder how much of this is about protecting his brand and how much is genuine concern. Celebrities often use personality rights to control their image commercially. But the deepfake porn part is absolutely unacceptable—that crosses every line. Glad the court is being careful not to issue blanket removals that could stifle legitimate commentary.
V
Vikram M
गोलगप्पे बेचने वाली AI images? 😂 That's actually creative trolling, but pornographic content is a different ball game. The problem is how do you separate genuine parody from malicious content? Court should focus on clear cases of defamation and deepfake porn, and leave the rest to common sense. Also, why blame platforms? They can't manually review everything.
S
Sarah B
It's reassuring that the court is referencing past cases like Jubin Nautiyal and Vivek Oberoi. We need consistent legal standards. But I do think the "common man" observation is a bit dismissive—ordinary people also deserve personality protection. Maybe this case will pressure platforms to create better reporting mechanisms that work for everyone, not just celebrities with legal teams.
A
Ananya R
As someone who works in digital media, I can tell you AI-generated content is exploding in

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50