3 weeks ago
Delhi Court Refuses Fan Page Ban, Orders Obscene Content Removed
Janhvi Kapoor is a famous Indian actress.
She asked a court in Delhi to remove bad things about her on the internet.
Some of those things were fake pictures made with computers that put her face onto inappropriate images.
There were also fake accounts that pretended to be her and tried to trick people.
The court agreed to remove really inappropriate and obscene content, but only if her lawyers brought back a specific list of those pages.
The judge said no to removing all of her fan pages, because fans should be free to like her, criticize her, or make jokes about her.
He said shutting everything down would make a public figure 'live in a cave.'
The court also said no to an automatic 'dynamic injunction' that would block new bad links without asking the court first.
A big company called Meta, which runs social media platforms, said it is impossible for humans to check every single link by hand.
Now the lawyers need to come back with a clear list of the worst content so the court can order it removed.
Delhi High Court ordered the takedown of ex facie pornographic, obscene, prurient and lascivious content targeting actor Janhvi Kapoor.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani refused a blanket ban on Kapoor's fan pages, framing it as a free speech issue rather than a personality rights one.
Kapoor's petition targeted over 5,000 webpages and posts — Meta cited more than 4,000 URLs — including AI-generated pornographic content, impersonating accounts, fake booking agencies and chatbots.
The court rejected a dynamic injunction that would automatically block new infringing links, directing Kapoor's counsel to return with a tabulated chart of offending pages.
Meta opposed the petition, arguing manual review of flagged links is impossible and AI-generated images are not prohibited by law; the court warned Meta not to overstep its role as a neutral intermediary.
- Who
- Actor Janhvi Kapoor, who petitioned the Delhi High Court for protection of her personality rights; Meta Platforms opposed the petition
- What
- The Delhi High Court ordered the takedown of pornographic and obscene content targeting Kapoor while refusing a blanket ban on her fan pages and a dynamic injunction
- Where
- Delhi High Court, Delhi, India
- When
- Tuesday; the exact date was not stated in the articles
- Why
- Kapoor alleged her name and likeness were being commercially exploited without consent through AI-generated pornographic content, impersonating accounts, fake booking agencies and chatbots
Personality rights advocates
Free speech and platform advocates
Fan pages
Personality rights advocates
Kapoor's side argued that fan pages were commercially exploiting elements of her personality, including obscene photographs and profanity, and should not be permitted to exist.
Free speech and platform advocates
The court and Meta countered that many fan pages contain satire, criticism or adoration protected as free speech, and a blanket ban would leave a public figure 'living in a cave.'
Dynamic injunction
Personality rights advocates
Kapoor's team sought a dynamic injunction so newly infringing links could be blocked automatically without repeated trips to court.
Free speech and platform advocates
Meta argued it is not humanly possible to manually review all flagged links and that AI-generated images are not prohibited by law; the court found automatic blocking of every flagged link overbroad and unworkable.
Copyright vs. personality rights
Personality rights advocates
Kapoor's petition implies celebrities should control how their image and personality traits are used and monetized online without consent.
Free speech and platform advocates
Justice Bhambhani leaned toward copyright principles: whoever owns a copyrighted work, such as a photographer who photographs a celebrity or a potter who paints a likeness on a mug, generally has the right to sell it.
Key facts
- Petitioner
- Actor Janhvi Kapoor
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Presiding judge
- Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
- Target of petition
- Over 5,000 webpages and posts (Meta cited more than 4,000 URLs)
- Content flagged
- AI-generated pornography, impersonating accounts on Meta and X Corp, fake booking agencies, chatbots
- Relief granted
- Takedown of ex facie pornographic, obscene, prurient and lascivious content; content directly monetising her personality; content promoting merchandise or services using her name
- Relief refused
- Blanket ban on fan pages; dynamic injunction
- Opposing party
- Meta Platforms
Quotes
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Judge of the Delhi High Court
“"How do we draw the line? In law, we can only do so much and no more. To completely restrain everything cannot be the approach. Where there is obscenity or monetising or extremely egregious or inappropriate content I am with you but how can you shut down all fanclubs?"”
telegraphindia.com
“"A part of it may be satire or critical of your work. Fanpages is your monopoly. Are you sure?... If they are monetising or there is commercial exploitation then yes but not all fanpages are (offending)."”
telegraphindia.com









