Personality rights lawsuits in India are no longer aimed only at anonymous infringers. They are increasingly pulling social media platforms into court as judges direct companies such as X, Meta, Google and YouTube to remove allegedly infringing content.
The shift reflects a growing trend in which celebrities and other public figures are asking courts not only to restrain anonymous infringers but also to direct online intermediaries to take down disputed content. In some cases, courts have also directed platforms to disclose subscriber details and IP logs of alleged infringers.
That has left platforms balancing compliance with court orders against the risk of removing lawful speech, according to technology and intellectual property lawyers.
“Social media platforms are where most personality rights violations occur and spread rapidly. Since the original infringers are often anonymous or difficult to trace, courts increasingly implead intermediaries because they are best placed to remove infringing content and ensure effective enforcement of judicial orders,” said Amit Panigrahi, partner (Intellectual Property) at law firm Kochhar & Co.
Recent cases
The latest example came on Monday, when the Bombay High Court allowed Union minister Nitin Gadkari to implead Meta and Google in his ₹11 crore defamation and personality rights suit over alleged artificial intelligence (AI)-generated and manipulated content falsely linking him and his family to the Centre's E20 fuel policy. He has sought the removal of the allgedly defamatory posts, saying the suit targets false and AI-generated content.
On the same day, the Delhi High Court, while hearing Salman Khan's plea alleging that the teaser of Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy violated his personality rights, observed that intermediaries could not distance themselves from allegedly infringing content. Justice Jyoti Singh remarked that “as platform owners, I will have to fix some responsibility on you somewhere.”
Earlier in June, the Bombay High Court, in actor Preity Zinta's personality rights case, directed several online platforms to remove infringing links and restrain the continued misuse of her identity.
Platforms push back
Platforms, meanwhile, have begun resisting some of those directions.
In actor Vivek Oberoi's personality rights suit, X Corp. approached the Delhi High Court earlier this month seeking modification of an interim order directing the removal of two URLs. The company argued the posts were protected speech and did not violate the actor's personality rights. The matter is pending before the court.
According to technology lawyers, the absence of a dedicated personality rights law has made such decisions increasingly difficult, requiring platforms to distinguish allegedly infringing content from lawful news reporting, criticism and parody.
Apar Gupta, technology lawyer and founder director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, said, “Under-removal may expose a platform to contempt or loss of safe harbour, while excessive removal generally carries no immediate consequence. Platforms therefore tend to remove doubtful material, with satire, parody, criticism and fan-created content often becoming the first casualties,” he said.
Gupta said courts are increasingly requiring intermediaries to assess whether newly identified URLs fall within existing takedown orders, even though they are not expected to determine the legality of every complaint. “The risk is that platforms increasingly perform an adjudicatory function properly belonging to courts.”
In response to Mint's queries, Google-owned YouTube said it reviews every court order and government request individually before taking action in accordance with applicable laws and its policies. The company said it uses machine learning, human reviewers, likeness detection, privacy complaints and AI content labels to identify and remove policy-violating content, and publishes details of court and government requests in its Transparency Report.
Mint did not receive responses from Meta, X, and the ministry of electronics and information technology (MeitY) until press time.
“There is a real risk of enforcement overreach. Faced with contempt proceedings, liability or loss of safe harbour protection, platforms will naturally err on the side of removal. That may make enforcement easier, but it could also result in lawful speech being taken down and adversely affect freedom of expression,” said Ankit Sahni, partner, Ajay Sahni Associates LLP, who regularly appears in intellectual property and technology disputes.
An evolving legal framework
Personality rights are not governed by a standalone law in India but have largely evolved through court rulings. Since the landmark Amitabh Bachchan order in 2022, more than 20 public figures, including actors, politicians, sportspersons, musicians, spiritual leaders and digital creators, have approached courts seeking protection against the unauthorized use of their names, images, voices and likenesses.
Some lawyers argue India now needs a dedicated law spelling out intermediary obligations, due process and safeguards for free speech before content is removed.
Swati Sharma, partner and head of intellectual property at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, disagreed. "The legal framework to address deepfakes, AI-generated infringing content and intermediary liability is well established. India has a clear and comprehensive framework covering both the rights of public figures and the responsibilities of online platforms. The real challenge now is keeping pace with the sheer volume of cases," Sharma said.