Alakh Pandey Personality Rights Suit | Delhi HC Signals Interim Protection Against Commercial Exploitation, Explicit Content

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, however, directed Pandey to place on record a defendant-wise tabulated note identifying specific instances of alleged violations before any interim relief could be granted. The Court deferred the issuance of summons in the suit and notice on the interim injunction application, listing the matter for Wednesday.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for Pandey, argued that the educator had acquired a distinct public persona through his work, widespread recognition and popularity, making his personality commercially valuable and deserving of legal protection.

Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak submitted that Pandey's public persona, face, likeness and "larger than life image" were being exploited without authorization across online platforms.

Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak told the Court that numerous social media pages and Telegram channels were using Pandey's image and personality attributes to sell coupon codes and other products, while AI-generated images, stickers, GIFs and other content depicting him in sexually explicit or defamatory ways were also circulating online.

At the outset, however, Justice Bhambhani expressed reservations over the manner in which the suit had been framed.

"You're conflating too many things under this umbrella of personality rights and publicity rights...there are issues of trademark, there are issues of copyright violation...there are issues of defamation, libel, slander, etc."

The Court indicated that, at the ex parte ad interim stage, it was inclined only to protect Pandey against content that commercially monetised his personality, while broader relief would require closer scrutiny.

Responding to the Court's concerns, Senior Advocate Sai Deepak clarified that the suit was not an attempt to suppress criticism, parody or humorous memes.

He submitted that the plaintiff was targeting only the unauthorised commercial exploitation of Pandey's identity and content that was sexually explicit or defamatory.

Referring to the Delhi High Court's decision in the Aman Gupta case, Senior Advocate Sai Deepak argued that courts had recognised the need for urgent intervention where sexually explicit material was created using a person's personality traits.

While such content could also raise issues of defamation or other legal wrongs, he submitted that the foundation of the present case remained the unauthorised exploitation of Pandey's personality.

Senior Advocate Sai Deepak further clarified that no relief had been sought in respect of the trademarks or intellectual property belonging to Physics Wallah.

Instead, he submitted that the grievance was confined to the unauthorised use of Pandey's own face, likeness and name.

"We are only saying where my face is used, my likeness is used. This is about the individual... no content which relates to an IP dispute needs to be removed here from a company's perspective wherever we are looking at PW, Physics Wallah, so on and so forth. But where it uses AP, where it uses Alakh Pandey, where it specifically mentions me, uses my picture, those are the content which I'm specifically going after" Senior Advocate Sai Deepak submitted.

The Court then questioned whether every unauthorized use of a public figure's image could fall within the ambit of personality rights, posing examples of criticism, satire and lampooning.

Senior Advocate Sai Deepak responded that Pandey had "no problems" with criticism or satire and accepted that such expression lay outside the scope of the suit.

He maintained that the proceedings were confined to instances where Pandey's likeness was used to commercially exploit his persona or portray him through sexually explicit and degrading material, reiterating that the suit did not seek removal of content concerning Physics Wallah's intellectual property.

"In fact, there is heavy-duty explicit content there, going to the point of even attracting POCSO in some of these cases where they've actually shown me in those kind of positions. That is the problem there. So they've actually created a bundle, and it's the same party doing it, it's not multiple parties doing it...kindly see the kind of images that have been created, positively sexually demeaning, shows me in a predatory light, and it's abusive. I repeat, I will not come after anything that is criticism or even a meme that is funny. But where money is sought to be made out of this..." Senior Advocate Sai Deepak submitted.

The Court also examined sample material placed on record, including Telegram content relied upon by the plaintiff.

Senior Advocate Sai Deepak submitted that while harmless memes were not being challenged, several pages were using Pandey's image to market coupon codes, while other material portrayed him in sexually demeaning ways.

"I repeat, my Lords, I have not come to this Court to shield me from any kind of criticism, that's not possible in this day and age. But there are some red lines that people have to follow, regardless of my reputation, because it cannot be a situation where a private individual who does not have the position of a personality, his rights with respect to sexual content are better protected than me, and I've signed up for being demeaned in this fashion merely because I've been successful. I am not asserting any right which is not granted by the law under any circumstances" Senior Advocate Sai Deepak argued.

Justice Bhambhani observed that some of the material shown appeared "vulgar", but noted that the Court could not grant a sweeping injunction because many links also contained content that appeared legitimate.

He emphasised that the Court had to avoid passing overbroad directions, particularly in light of judicial precedent cautioning against blanket takedown orders.

At one stage, the Court remarked: "I am willing to protect you...at this ex-parte ad-interim stage...insofar as content which is using your personality to monetise."

The Court also indicated that protection could extend to sexually explicit material but added: "I am not going to issue a blanket injunction today."

In response, Senior Advocate Sai Deepak submitted: "I am not going to ask for a blanket take down. This was to basically show a sample of the entire thing. My Lord may pick and choose from this in terms of what is sexually explicit; we don't have a problem."

Accepting the Court's concerns regarding overbreadth, Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak proposed filing a comparative note identifying only those instances falling within the limited categories indicated by the Court.

He stressed that the plaintiff had not approached the Court "under hubris" to insulate himself from caricature or criticism and was willing to confine the relief sought to clearly identifiable instances of commercial exploitation and sexually explicit content.

Accepting Senior Advocate Sai Deepak's submission, Justice Bhambhani remarked: "That's the word. Hubris is the word. Completely with you. And what is also happening is because of the nature of the content, if you bring me a hundred links, if you bring me a hundred URLs, now, the experience has it that embedded in those URLs is stuff which is perfectly legit."

The Court then directed the plaintiff to file a tabulated chart identifying the alleged infractions committed by specific defendants under the following categories:

1.⁠ ⁠Commercialisation or monetisation of the plaintiff's personality; and

2.⁠ ⁠Content that is prima facie vulgar or sexually explicit, while excluding content amounting to caricature, lampooning, parody or libel/slander that may either be protected under the free speech regime or be actionable outside the personality rights framework.

The Court also recorded the appearance of counsel for Google, Telegram, the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.

Counsel appearing for the intermediary platforms stated that they did not wish to file a reply at this stage, describing their role as neutral, and indicated that they could assist the Court once the plaintiff identified the specific links in question.

The matter has been listed for Wednesday, when Pandey is expected to place the defendant-wise tabulation on record.