Delhi High Court Hears Karan Johar’s Plea to Protect His Personality Rights, Hints at Selective Takedown Orders
Introduction
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court heard the plea of filmmaker and television personality Karan Johar in Karan Johar v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors., seeking protection of his personality rights. The petition follows similar actions by Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, who recently approached the Court to safeguard their names, images, and personas from unauthorized exploitation online.
Notably, in another recent development, the Delhi High Court addressed parallel concerns in Delhi High Court Restrains Unauthorized Use Of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan’s Name, Image, And Personality Traits, highlighting the judiciary’s evolving approach towards protecting celebrity identity and contractual rights in the digital era.
Factual Background
Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, appearing for Johar, argued that several websites and social media pages had been misusing Johar’s photographs and name for fundraising and promotional activities without his consent. He emphasized that Johar’s identity was being commercially exploited under the guise of fan pages and online content.
Respondent’s Case
Meta Platforms, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, opposed Johar’s petition. Advocate Varun Pathak, representing Meta, cautioned against granting a blanket injunction. He submitted that most of the flagged content consisted of ordinary commentary and memes, which could not be deemed defamatory. “These are ordinary people having comments and having discussion. Now to drag them to Court for making an ordinary joke,” Pathak stated.
Court’s Observations
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora recognized the distinction between disparaging content, harmless memes, and commercial misuse. The Court observed:
“Mr Rao, you have to look at two things, one is disparagement, which is different from memes. Memes are not necessarily disparaging. Then somebody is selling merchandise. Third is your domain name. Please specifically identify it, the Court will consider it. It cannot be every fan page. We cannot have an open-ended injunction.”
Rao countered that Johar must retain control over the use of his persona. He stressed,
“There is a line between making fun… The more the memes, the more viral it is, the more money you make… I have a right to ensure that nobody uses my persona, or my face, characteristics without my consent. The fact that I chose to look the other way does not give any carte blanche to others.”
Decision
After hearing arguments, the Court hinted that it may issue selective takedown orders against specific online pages found to be misusing Johar’s identity. Justice Arora clarified that if similar pages emerge in the future, Johar could first notify the platforms, and approach the Court only if they fail to act.
“If they don’t, you come to court,” Justice Arora remarked.
The matter has been adjourned, with the Court expected to decide Johar’s application for interim relief on September 17, 2025.
If you have a news or deal publication or would like to collaborate on content, columns, or article publications, connect with the Legal Era News Network Team and email us at [email protected] or call us on +91 8879634922.