Cinema VinesActress Janhvi Kapoor has filed a petition in the Delhi High Court to protect her personality rights after a wave of objectionable content, fake profiles and AI‑generated deepfakes using her name and likeness appeared online. During the hearing on Tuesday, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani signalled that the court was ready to issue an ex parte ad interim order ordering the removal of material that is “clearly obscene and profane.”
Kapoor’s lawyer, Advocate Asav Rajan, told the bench that the actress was especially upset by pornographic images, impersonating accounts and deepfakes that circulated on Meta‑owned platforms and X. He also pointed out that the accounts were spreading misleading information in her name and that she was seeking restrictions on any third‑party commercial exploitation of her image, name and other elements of her persona.
In his submission, the counsel presented more than 4,000 URLs containing the disputed material. The court explained that protection could cover three categories: content that is clearly pornographic or obscene, content that directly seeks to monetise Kapoor’s personality rights, and the use of her name or likeness for selling merchandise or promoting services. However, Justice Bhambhani questioned whether every fan page could be treated as an infringement, noting that some pages might be satirical or critical of the actor’s work.
Representing Meta platforms, Advocate Varun Pathak argued that the URLs did not all contain material that could be uniformly classified as obscene or profane. He agreed that clearly objectionable content could be removed but sought a narrower scope for the broader request. The judge therefore asked Kapoor’s legal team to classify the material into appropriate categories before deciding on the scope of the order.
Justice Bhambhani cautioned against an overly broad interpretation of personality rights, warning that such claims should not become a means of suppressing legitimate expression or shielding alleged wrongdoing. The matter will be considered after the disputed content is categorised, with the court expected to decide on the appropriate limits of the order.
