The question in one line
If a well-known person can stop others from using their name, face and voice, can they also stop a meme, a cartoon, a spoof video — or a video that accuses them of wrongdoing?
The Delhi High Court has now said, in terms, that the answer is not automatically yes.
What the Court was dealing with
In Alakh Pandey v. John Doe & Ors [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 736], Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani was hearing a suit filed by the educator and Physics Wallah founder alleging that his personality and publicity rights were being infringed across a range of online platforms. This is a “John Doe” suit — one filed against unknown defendants, because the people putting up the content cannot be identified in advance.
The Court granted interim protection. But it did something else at the same time, and that is the part worth understanding.
The caution the Court recorded
The Court observed that the concept of personality rights, as claimed in the case, “may be over broad and therefore susceptible to misapplication.” Referring to an earlier decision of a coordinate bench in DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors., the Court said it would want to examine and ensure that personality rights are not deployed to prevent dissemination of information relating to wrongdoing, or to extinguish an entire genre of expression including caricature, lampooning or parody, where that expression does not amount to commercial exploitation of a person’s personality or publicity rights.
Two limits are packed into that sentence:
- Personality rights are not a defamation shortcut. A claim framed as “this is my face, take it down” cannot be used to suppress information about alleged wrongdoing.
- Parody and caricature are a genre, not an infringement. Unless the use commercially exploits the person’s identity, it does not automatically fall within the right.
What the Court actually restrained
This matters, because headlines flatten it. The Court granted interim protection in respect of three categories of content only:
- content portraying the plaintiff in a sexually vulgar manner;
- content that monetised his personality for gain without a licence or right to do so;
- content involving impersonation of him.
For those three categories the Court found a prima facie case, balance of convenience in the plaintiff’s favour, and irreparable injury if protection were refused, and passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against certain defendants. Intermediary defendants were directed to take down the identified URLs and disclose particulars of the persons behind the accounts.
Everything outside those three buckets was not swept in.
The intermediary point most people miss
The Court also dealt with mirror websites — clones of a blocked site that pop up under a slightly different address. The plaintiff was given liberty to furnish particulars of such mirror sites on affidavit to the concerned Internet Service Provider or Domain Name Registrar.
The Court was careful about why that is not a licence to censor. For an intermediary such as an ISP or a domain name registrar to enjoy safe-harbour protection under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, it must operate in a strictly neutral manner, and it cannot be given discretion to block websites merely because a party asks it to. The Court clarified that its order did not confer that discretion. The intermediary is not being asked to decide whether a site deserves blocking; it is only being asked to verify, technically, whether a given site is a mirror or redirect of a site already injuncted.
That is a narrow, mechanical task — and keeping it narrow is what protects the intermediary’s neutrality.
Where this sits in the law
Personality or publicity rights in India are not the creation of a single statute. They have been built case by case, drawing on passing off, privacy and the right to control commercial use of one’s identity. Because there is no codified boundary, the boundary has to come from constitutional principle.
Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression. It can be restricted only by a reasonable restriction falling within Article 19(2) — and satire, parody and criticism of a public figure are ordinarily protected speech, not a listed exception. The Court’s caution is a reminder that a private right, however real, cannot be read so widely that it does the work Article 19(2) would not permit the State to do directly.
What this does not decide
- It does not hold that parody is always lawful. Content that is obscene, that impersonates, or that commercially monetises someone’s identity was expressly restrained.
- It does not finally decide the scope of personality rights. This is an interim, ex-parte order in a pending suit. The defendants have not been heard on merits.
- It does not give anyone a general right to post whatever they like about a public figure. Defamation, obscenity and IT Rules obligations continue to apply independently.
If you make content about public figures
Practical takeaways, stated as the legal position and nothing more:
- Commercial use is the danger zone. Using a person’s face or voice to sell a product, a course, or a channel’s merchandise is where publicity rights bite hardest.
- Impersonation is not parody. A parody signals that it is a parody. An account that pretends to be the person is a different thing in law.
- Allegations need a basis. Reporting wrongdoing is protected in a way that fabricating wrongdoing is not.
- Sexualised or obscene depictions have no shelter, satirical framing or not.
Frequently asked questions
Is making a meme of a famous person illegal in India? There is no provision making memes as such unlawful. The Delhi High Court has cautioned that personality rights should not be used to extinguish caricature, lampooning or parody where there is no commercial exploitation. Whether a particular meme crosses into obscenity, defamation or commercial use is a fact-specific question.
What is a John Doe order? An order passed against unidentified defendants, so that relief can be enforced against persons whose identity emerges later. It is common in online infringement suits.
Are personality rights written into any Indian statute? There is no single statute codifying them. They have developed through judicial decisions, drawing on passing off, privacy and publicity-rights reasoning; DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors. is among the decisions referred to in this order.
Can a website be blocked just because someone complains to the ISP? The Court noted that an intermediary must remain strictly neutral to retain safe harbour under Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000, and clarified that it was not conferring on ISPs or domain name registrars any discretion to block on a party’s asking. The task described was technical verification of mirror sites already covered by an injunction.
Is the case over? No. The order discussed here is an interim, ex-parte one in a pending suit.
Disclaimers — carry verbatim
This is general legal awareness, not legal advice. Legal outcomes depend on facts, documents, law, forum, evidence, limitation and judicial discretion — no outcome is guaranteed. Consult a qualified advocate on your own facts.
Adv. Prakhar Gupta — enrolled with the Bar Council of Rajasthan, Enrolment No. R/2196/2020. This page shares legal awareness/education only; it is not advertisement or solicitation of work.
Parts of this content (images/voice/summary) were created or edited using AI tools.
Provision and precedent relied on: Alakh Pandey v. John Doe & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 736 (Delhi High Court, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani); DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors. (Delhi High Court, coordinate bench); Section 79, Information Technology Act, 2000; Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(2), Constitution of India.
Note on a pending matter: the order discussed is interim and ex-parte. This piece explains the legal question the Court has identified. It makes no prediction about the outcome for any party.