AI-generated summary
The Delhi High Court is examining the legal limits of personality rights in the digital space, particularly in cases involving alleged unauthorized use of celebrities' names, images, and likenesses online, as demonstrated by petitions from actors Janhvi Kapoor and Vivek Oberoi.
The Delhi High Court is examining the legal limits of personality rights in the digital space. The matter has come up in actor Janhvi Kapoor's petition against the alleged unauthorised use of her identity online. The court has now brought in independent legal assistance to examine the wider issues involved. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani appointed advocate Gautam Bhatia as amicus curiae in Janhvi Kapoor's case on September 3, as reported by LiveLaw.
Delhi High Court appoints amicus curiae
Reportedly, advocate Gautam Bhatia will assist the Delhi High Court in examining the questions arising from Janhvi Kapoor's personality rights plea. The case involves the alleged misuse of the actor's name, image and likeness on the internet. A similar arrangement has been made in another matter involving actor Vivek Oberoi. Advocate Rohan Alva has been appointed as amicus curiae in Oberoi's personality rights case. The two proceedings involve broader questions about the protection available to public figures online. They also require the court to consider how such rights interact with legitimate digital expression.
Janhvi Kapoor seeks protection from online misuse
Janhvi Kapoor's petition raises concerns over several forms of alleged unauthorised use of her identity. The material mentioned in the plea includes sexually explicit and vulgar content. The petition also covers alleged impersonation. Commercial exploitation of the actor's name and likeness is another issue before the court. The dispute involves thousands of online links. Janhvi Kapoor had identified 6,884 URLs as part of her plea. However, the court did not accept a request for a blanket direction covering every URL. Instead, the links are being examined according to the nature of the material involved. This approach allows different types of content to be considered separately.
Court directs removal of 552 URLs
The Delhi High Court previously ordered the removal of 552 URLs. These links were prima facie found to contain grossly sexually vulgar or pornographic material. The other URLs are being divided into different categories. One category covers sexually vulgar content. Another concerns material that directly generates revenue through the alleged exploitation of Janhvi Kapoor's personality rights. The classification also includes links that indirectly use her name or likeness to promote merchandise or services. The categorisation is significant because not every online reference to a celebrity necessarily carries the same legal implications. The court is therefore examining the nature and purpose of the individual content.
Janhvi Kapoor's legal team seeks interim relief
At Thursday's hearing, Janhvi Kapoor's lawyers informed the court that the URLs had been classified as directed. Her counsel then sought an early hearing for the application seeking interim relief. The request comes as the court continues to consider how the different categories of links should be dealt with. The proceedings could also help clarify the scope of personality rights in cases involving large-scale online content. The issue extends beyond Janhvi Kapoor's individual complaint. Janhvi Kapoor's last released film was the Telugu action drama 'Peddi'. The film arrived in theatres on June 4, 2026. Disclaimer: The information in this report is based on a legal hearing as reported by a third-party source. The details provided represent allegations made by the parties involved and are not proven facts. The case is ongoing, and a final verdict has not been reached. The publication does not claim that the allegations are true.
AI outlook — possibilities, not facts
The Delhi High Court will grant interim relief in the form of directional orders for removal of specific categories of URLs identified as violating personality rights.
Likely · Within weeks
The court's ruling will establish a framework for categorizing online content based on nature and purpose when assessing personality rights violations.
Very likely · Within months
The Karnataka High Court ruled that Bengaluru municipal authorities cannot impose post-facto land relinquishment conditions for road widening as a prerequisite for issuing occupancy certificates, upholding property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution and finding no statutory basis in the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 or BBMP Act for such demands.
A US district court in Massachusetts heard arguments in a lawsuit challenging a DHS rule that replaces the 'duration of status' visa system for international students and exchange visitors with fixed four-year admission periods, effective September 15, 2026.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to a 78-year-old retired IFS officer, Jayaramaiah, accused in a multi-state fraud case. The court ruled that receiving illicit funds in one's account does not automatically prove criminal complicity.
The Gujarat High Court dismissed as withdrawn an appeal by former cricketer and MP Yusuf Pathan against a single-judge order labeling him an encroacher on a Vadodara plot.
The Supreme Court stated that poverty, inequality, illiteracy and discriminatory environments trigger delinquent behaviour in children, emphasizing that juveniles should not be treated as criminals but as victims of circumstance, in contrast to a ruling that contrasts with a previous bench's focus on technology and social media's impact on youth.
India's National Human Rights Commission has issued notices to the ministries of electronics and information technology and information and broadcasting as part of its inquiry into whether Meta's systems actively participate in the generation, selection, circulation, amplification or monetisation of child sexual abuse material on Instagram, questioning the platform's status as a passive intermediary under IT Rules, 2021.