Karan Johar Gets Relief from Delhi High Court in Personality Rights Case

Karan Johar Gets Relief from Delhi High Court in Personality Rights Case
X

Karan Johar Gets Relief from Delhi High Court in Personality Rights Case

Delhi HC grants Karan Johar interim relief, ordering tech giants to aid probe into misuse of his name, image, and voice.

Renowned filmmaker Karan Johar has secured significant relief from the Delhi High Court in his ongoing legal battle to protect his personality rights. Johar had filed a suit alleging that his name, image, and voice were being misused across various digital platforms without his consent.

The Court acknowledged the concerns raised by Johar and stated that his personality rights would be protected. It also directed major technology companies, including Google, Meta, and X (formerly Twitter), to provide critical information, such as IT log records and Basic Subscriber Information (BSI), to assist with the investigation.

Additionally, online marketplace Redbubble has been instructed to remove objectionable content allegedly exploiting Johar's identity. The Court will issue a detailed order at the next hearing.

According to LiveLaw, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora clarified that Defendants 14, 15, and 16, Google, Meta, and X, were not being summoned at this stage but were being impleaded for compliance purposes. The Court stated that it would decide on the issuance of formal summons to these platforms at a later date.

Summons were, however, issued to Defendants 2 to 5 and 7 to 10, which include online platforms such as Giphy and Pinterest.

“In the interim application, I will pass a detailed order. Injunction to be granted,” the judge said in open court, offering Johar interim protection against further misuse of his identity.

This development follows similar recent rulings by the Delhi High Court in favor of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan, where the Court recognized that the unauthorized use of celebrity likeness through technological tools, including AI, amounts to a violation of the right to privacy.

Next Story
Share it