Delhi High Court keeps granting celebrity takedown orders, and keeps refusing to make them blanket bans

India has no statute creating personality rights. What exists instead is a run of interim orders from a single court, the High Court of Delhi, and the published orders are narrower than the coverage of them suggests.

The fullest recent example is signed and downloadable. In CS(COMM) 626/2026, Varun Dhawan v. Artist Booking Company and Others, Justice Jyoti Singh made an ex parte ad interim order on 29 May 2026 running to 23 pages, of which seven are an annexure listing 168 individual web addresses. The court restrained a defined set of defendants, numbers 1 to 3, 5 to 8, 10 to 13 and 15, from using the actor's name, image, voice or likeness for commercial or personal gain, including "through the use of technology including but not limited to Artificial Intelligence, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Deepfakes, AI Chatbots, Face Morphing".

The defendants left out of that restraint are the large intermediaries. Amazon, Google, Meta and X were not restrained from anything. They were directed to take down specified numbered links within 36 hours and to disclose Basic Subscriber Information for the accounts identified in the plaint. Two government defendants were directed to block a run of 21 addresses carrying pornographic content. The order also contains a forward looking clause requiring Google, Meta and X to remove fresh infringing links within 36 hours of being told about them, which is the closest the order comes to something open ended, and even that is tied to links the plaintiff must supply.

The reasoning is drawn from earlier decisions of the same court rather than from any legislation: Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2023), Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store (2024) and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com (2025). The court found the plaintiff had registered trade marks in his own name and signature, which gave him a statutory route in parallel to the personality right the judgment describes.

The limits are clearest in Arjun Kapoor's case. At a hearing on 29 April 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela cautioned that not all content concerning a public figure can be removed, warned against an "overly broad approach", and observed that "a common man does not come to court for personality rights". Material that was defamatory or disparaging could be addressed. The interim order followed on 4 May 2026, staying unauthorised use of the actor's name, photograph, voice and likeness, and directing Google and Meta to remove infringing content and disclose account details. The court rejected the platforms' argument that much of the material was satire, finding the name had been used vulgarly and at scale.

The same pattern held in August. On 11 August 2026 Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani directed platforms to remove explicit, obscene and deepfake material targeting Janhvi Kapoor, and expressly refused blanket blocking orders against fan accounts, commentary channels or meme pages, on the reasoning that non commercial fan participation does not violate publicity or privacy rights. A day later, on 12 August 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh made an interim order for her sister Khushi Kapoor, requiring immediate removal of AI morphed explicit images and pornographic content and the takedown of unauthorised merchandise listings, with John Doe protection against unidentified domain registrants and vendors.

Naga Chaitanya obtained interim relief in late May 2026 on similar grounds, including AI generated and deepfake material and content concerning his separation from the actor Samantha Ruth Prabhu. The volume is now sufficient that the same court is being asked harder questions. In August 2026 Abhishek Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai brought an omnibus application on behalf of their minor daughter, and Justice Bhambhani raised the question of whether family reputation functions like trade mark goodwill and how an inherited legacy is meant to travel across generations under passing off law. Separately, Shruti Haasan filed a suit valued at 15 crore rupees in the Bombay High Court against 18 digital entities, pleading performer's moral rights under sections 38, 38A and 38B of the Copyright Act rather than a general personality right.

What is not settled is almost everything that matters. Every order described here is interim and expressed to run only until the next date of hearing. In the Dhawan matter summons to the remaining defendants were returnable before the court on 1 October 2026, and no written statements had been filed when the order was made. There is no appellate ruling defining the boundaries of the right, no statute, and no decided case testing what happens when a defendant with resources contests one of these orders to judgment.