Delhi HC Protects Balkrishna's Personality Rights, Orders Removal of Defamatory Content

The Delhi High Court has passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of Acharya Balkrishna, co-founder of Patanjali Ayurved, and directed the removal of vulgar and defamatory social media content against him. The case centers on the misuse of deepfake videos and manipulated online material that Balkrishna claims harms his reputation. The court, however, cautioned that public figures must tolerate criticism and satire, and refused to issue a blanket takedown order, asking for a specific list of violating content. This ruling underscores the growing legal challenges surrounding digital reputation and AI-generated deepfakes.

Key Points: Delhi HC Orders Removal of Defamatory Content Against Balkrishna

  • Interim order protects personality rights
  • Directs removal of defamatory social media content
  • Case involves deepfake and manipulated videos
  • Highlights legal limits on blanket takedown orders
3 min read

Delhi HC protects Balkrishna's personality rights, orders removal of defamatory content

Delhi High Court issues interim order protecting Acharya Balkrishna's personality rights, directing removal of vulgar and defamatory social media content.

"A public figure must be open to criticism, satire and commentary - Delhi High Court"

New Delhi, March 24

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of Acharya Balkrishna and directed the removal of vulgar, defamatory and insulting social media content against him. The order was passed by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.

Balkrishna, a businessman, author, and co-founder and managing director of Patanjali Ayurved, has approached the Court claiming that his personality rights are being misused through deepfake videos and other manipulated online content. He is also known as a close associate of yoga guru Ramdev and has been listed among India's most influential personalities.

In his plea, Balkrishna said that fake and edited videos circulating online can mislead people and harm his reputation. His counsel argued that such content may confuse a large number of viewers, especially those in rural areas who may not be able to easily identify fake digital material.

The suit seeks protection of personality rights, which include a person's name, image, voice and identity from unauthorised use. It also raises concerns about the growing misuse of deepfake technology, where AI is used to create or alter videos and images in a misleading way.

Senior Advocate Arvind Nayyar appeared for Balkrishna, along with Advocates Yagyawalkya Singh, Divya Swamy, and Anubhav Agrawal.

The case highlights the rising number of disputes related to deepfake content and online reputation, especially involving public figures. Courts are increasingly dealing with such issues as digital content becomes more widespread.

Earlier, during the hearing on Monday, the High Court had asked Balkrishna to narrow down his request for the removal of online content, saying that the plea was too broad. The Court observed that a public figure must be open to criticism, satire and commentary, and it cannot pass blanket orders to take down content without examining specific instances.

The Court had also raised concerns that the list of links submitted included news reports from well-known media organisations that are not part of the case. It questioned whether such content could be removed without hearing those publishers.

Further, the Court said it cannot pass general or "omnibus" orders against unknown persons and noted that some of the content mentioned included satire and caricatures, which public figures are expected to tolerate.

Balkrishna's counsel clarified that they are not seeking the removal of content related to court proceedings, including material linked to Supreme Court judgments. Taking note of this, the

The court directed him to file a revised and clear list identifying the exact content that allegedly violates his personality rights.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

P
Priya S
Fully support this. My elderly parents in our village forward so many WhatsApp videos. They can't tell what's real and what's fake. If someone like Balkrishna ji is being targeted with edited videos, it creates unnecessary confusion and distrust.
R
Rohit P
The court's initial observation is spot on. Public figures must tolerate satire and criticism. You can't just ask for a blanket ban on all content you don't like. The revised list will be the real test – what exactly is "defamatory" vs. what is just critical commentary?
S
Sarah B
This is a global issue, not just Indian. Deepfakes are dangerous. But I'm glad the court is being careful not to stifle legitimate journalism or free speech. It's a nuanced approach.
K
Karthik V
Patanjali is a homegrown brand we are proud of. Creating fake videos to damage the reputation of its leaders is unacceptable. Hope the court acts firmly against the actual creators of such malicious content, not just the platforms.
N
Nisha Z
While defamation is wrong, the article says the initial plea included news reports! That's concerning. Using personality rights to potentially silence press coverage is a slippery slope. The court was right to ask for a narrower, specific list.

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

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50