The Delhi High Court has appointed advocate Gautam Bhatia as amicus curiae in actor Janhvi Kapoor's personality rights lawsuit, initiating formal judicial examination into the legal boundaries governing name, image, and likeness protections online. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani made the appointment during a court session on September 3, 2026, as the judiciary tackles broader constitutional questions regarding how far celebrities can restrict digital content without infringing upon freedom of expression, satire, and public commentary.
The high-profile litigation centers on Kapoor's legal challenge against the widespread unauthorized exploitation of her identity across the internet. Her petition specifically seeks legal protection from sexually explicit material, deepfake pornography, online impersonation, and commercial merchandise sales that leverage her likeness without consent. In a parallel proceeding involving actor Vivek Oberoi, the court separately appointed advocate Rohan Alva to serve as amicus curiae, underscoring the judiciary's intent to establish cohesive legal frameworks for the Indian entertainment industry.
Judicial Scrutiny and URL Categorization Mandates
During earlier phases of the legal proceedings, the bench declined to issue an sweeping, blanket takedown order covering all 6,884 internet links cited within Kapoor's initial petition. Instead, the court applied a calibrated standard of scrutiny, ordering the immediate removal of 552 URLs that were determined on a prima facie basis to contain grossly pornographic or sexually vulgar content targeting the actor.
To manage the remaining volume of contested internet links, the high court directed Kapoor's legal representation to meticulously segregate the disputed URLs into three distinct categories. These classifications comprise explicitly vulgar content, material that directly monetizes her personality rights through commercial engagement, and indirect references designed to market commercial services or merchandise without authorization.
Legal Compliance and Interim Relief Push
At the latest court hearing, Kapoor's legal counsel formally informed the bench that the extensive URL database had been successfully classified in strict compliance with the judicial directive. Following the completion of this categorization process, her legal team pressed the high court for an expedited hearing concerning her broader plea for interim judicial protection.
The court's structured approach reflects an increasing reliance on independent legal experts to navigate complex digital disputes. By designating amici curiae, the judiciary aims to balance individual privacy rights against public interest exceptions before deciding on further interim relief measures.
Balancing Personality Rights With Free Expression
The central tension in the ongoing litigation involves reconciling emerging personality rights doctrines with fundamental guarantees of free speech, satirical commentary, and public critique. Legal scholars and counsels note that unrestricted takedown requests risk sweeping legitimate forms of commentary, fan creations, and parody into broad censorship nets.
The appointment of specialized legal amici ensures that the Delhi High Court can deliberate on these competing jurisprudence principles comprehensively. The outcome of these proceedings is expected to establish a vital benchmark for digital privacy and intellectual property enforcement across Indian cinema.
Future Legal Implications For Indian Celebrities
As digital platforms continue to grapple with generative artificial intelligence, unauthorized deepfakes, and rampant online impersonation, the court's final ruling will likely shape future enforcement strategies for artists seeking legal recourse. The structured segregation model established in this case provides a potential judicial template for handling mass URL takedown requests without imposing disproportionate blanket bans on internet intermediaries.
