Bombay High Court Protects Singer Sonu Nigam's Right To Privacy, Directs Lawyer Sonu Nigam Singh To Use His Full Name In 'X' Account

Observing that the right of the citizens to free speech is not an 'unbridled' one, the Bombay High Court last week, while protecting the 'privacy' of Bollywood playback singer Sonu Nigam, directed a lawyer not to use 'Sonu Nigam' as the display name of his account on social media platform X (formerly Twitter).

Single-judge Justice Riyaz Chagla asked the lawyer from Bihar, to use his full name 'Sonu Nigam Singh' in his social media accounts in order to ensure that there is no confusion in the minds of the netizens about the the singer Sonu Nigam.

"While every citizen has a right to freedom speech and expression, however the same is not an unbridled or unfettered right. The Plaintiff's right to privacy which includes a 'right to be let alone' is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In my view, even though the Plaintiff is a celebrity, as a citizen of this country the Plaintiff is entitled to safeguard the privacy of his own and his family and to prevent the publication of any content in the media / social media which violates this right," the judge said in the order passed on July 11.

The judge further clarified, "It is clarified that the Defendant No. 1 is free to use the whole name 'Sonu Nigam Singh' in respect of his social media account on 'X' which does not cause misrepresentation or confusion or deception amongst the members of the general public."

As a matter of record, the bench noted that Sonu Nigam had taken a 'conscious' decision to leave X platform and deleted his social media account (from then Twitter) in the year 2017 itself. "Prima facie, I am of the view that the unauthorised use and/or commercial exploitation of the Plaintiff's name by the Defendant No. 1 on the X platform have not only associated the Plaintiff's name and persona with ignorable acts but have also severely damaged the reputation of the Plaintiff," Justice Chagla opined. 

The judge held that Sonu Nigam has made out a 'strong prima facie' case for the grant of ad-interim injunction and therefore, passed an ex-parte order.

"The balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. Unless the reliefs as prayed for are granted, the Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. According to me, in view of what is stated, giving notice to the Defendants would defeat the purpose of the Plaintiff's present application. However, since we are at an ex-parte stage, even though the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case, I am inclined to mould the relief sought by the Plaintiff in the Interim Application and limit the scope of the injunction to the use of the impugned display name “Sonu Nigam” per se on 'X' by the Defendant No. 1," the judge ordered. 

The bench was seized with a plea filed by Sonu Nigam through advocate Hiren Kamod, seeking injunction against a criminal lawyer from Bihar, named Sonu Nigam Singh. The lawyer, used 'Sonu Nigam' in his X account display and made several controversial comments on various issues right from politics, cricket, to the most recent 'Hindi vs regional languages' issue. However, with the lawyer Sonu Nigam Singh making controversial posts, netizens believed the same are made by singer Sonu Nigam since the lawyer in his display name has used only 'Sonu Nigam' and not 'Sonu Nigam Singh.'

Giving out various such instances wherein netizens abused the singer Sonu Nigam for the posts and comments made by lawyer Sonu Nigam Singh, advocate Kamod urged the judge to pass an ex-parte injunction.

Justice Chagla in his ad-interim order, acknowledged that Sonu Nigam is a prominent singer-performer in India, having amassed considerable goodwill and reputation over a distinguished career and has acquired a celebrity status in India. This has made the personal name of the singer 'Sonu Nigam; a 'distinctive' trademark. 

"The Defendant No. 1 is also fully aware of the Plaintiff's celebrity status which is evident from his social media post on 6th June 2024, where he attempts to justify his use of the impugned display name as completely innocuous, brushes off his use of the impugned display name as a coincidence and states that he has no intention to misleading the public or riding upon the Plaintiff's goodwill. However, the record before me discloses that, prima facie, the Defendant No. 1 is egregiously exploiting the Plaintiff's personality traits, especially his name, so as to actively as well as passively misrepresent to the general public that he is the Plaintiff," the bench held. 

Taking note of the posts made by lawyer Sonu Nigam Singh and the outrage of netizens in the comments sections, Justice Chagla said, "Even though the commentors on the Defendant No. 1's post are clearly under the misconception that the Defendant No. 1's post has been authored by the Plaintiff and are clearly aggrieved with the Plaintiff due to no fault on part of the Plaintiff, the Defendant No. 1 has chosen to remain silent and has allowed these users to remain under the misbelief that the Plaintiff is the authors of the above posts. The Defendant No. 1 could have easily clarified that he is different from the Plaintiff and that disassociated the Plaintiff as the source of the Defendant No. 1's posts, however, he has deliberately chosen not to do so."

At least prima facie, it appears that the Defendant No. 1 use of the Plaintiff's name / mark “Sonu Nigam” is causing "widespread confusion and misrepresentation amongst users of platform 'X' and the public at large believe that the posts on the Infringing Account are originating from the Plaintiff," the judge noted.  

"The present matter is not an ordinary case of misrepresentation and passing off by an unaware third party. The conduct of the Defendant No. 1 is exfacie dishonest and reeks of mala fides. In my prima facie view, the Defendant No. 1's use of the Plaintiff's name 'Sonu Nigam' as his display name on his social media account is causing misrepresentation and amounts to the tort of passing off and the same is liable to be injuncted," the bench underscored. 

With these observations, the bench adjourned the matter for further hearing on August 4. 

Appearance:

Advocates Hiren Kamod, Janay Jain, Monisha Mane, Chandrajit Das and Prem Khullar instructed bt Parinam Law Associates appeared for Sonu Nigam. 

Case Title: Sonu Nigam vs Sonu Nigam Singh [Commercial IPR Suit (Lodging) 20577 of 2025]

Click Here To Read/Download Order