'Will Pass Orders': Delhi High Court In Abhishek Bachchan's Plea Seeking Protection Of Personality Rights

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (September 10) orally indicated that it will pass an order on actor Abhishek Bachchan's lawsuit seeking protection of personality and publicity rights. 

Justice Tejas Karia said this after Bachchan's counsel submitted a note in the post-lunch session with respect to defendant entities against whom he was seeking relief. 

Notably on Tuesday, the court had while hearing the plaintiff's wife Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's lawsuit seeking protection of her 'personality rights', had orally indicated that it will pass an ad-interim order injuncting the defendant entities.

During the pre lunch session, advocate Pravin Anand appearing for Bachchan argued that plaintiff is a celebrity who has acted in more than 60 plus films.

"I have put his filmography. He has got 57 awards, of which 9 are filmfare awards. He is also into major sports events as a person who promotes Kabbadi, Indian super league for football," he said. 

He submitted that the rights he was claiming were the publicity and personality rights, copyright and passing off. Referring to the defendant entities he argued that they had engaged in illegal merchandising, had used Artificial Intelligence (AI) Systems to distort and had also circulated sexually objectionable material. 

Referring to the impugned material by defendant entities, he said, "Defendant 1 where plaintiff's name is used for making money. Defendant 4 is making posters etc. Defendant no. 7 claims to be giving signed photographs which are claimed to be signed by the plaintiff. All fake. There are videos are using AI technologies to distort, a level which can create misunderstanding...may see how insulting that can get...My lord can see the video…its all fake news".

He said that there were John Doe defendants for which links had been provided in the document in the plaint. 

The court at this stage orally said, "Whatever is (on) YouTube we can direct Google to take down. What about the others, you have not joined them as party. You have not joined Amazon as party. You'll have to give URL specific to each. DOT and MEITY come if you are not able to identify the platform, if you can identify...these are easily identifiable from URLs...this document has to be divided defendant wise and put it in the form of a note otherwise we can't pass a relief which is not prayed for". 

The court asked the plaintiff's counsel to identify the defendant entities and said, "What we can do is we can authorize counsel for plaintiff to inform these platforms and upon being notified the platforms can be directed do it...because once platforms are available and their grievance officers are available as per IT rules then there is no need to direct MEITY to take down". 

Anand said that he will do the exercise and come back pursuant to which the matter was passed over to 2:30 pm. 

In the post lunch session Anand handed over a note stating that he had separated the defendant entities. 

The court at this orally asked, "The other problem is also that making URL part of the order, because the order becomes public and once URL becomes public instead of protecting personality rights it may do more damage to the person's right?"

Anand said, "Since they will be taking action immediately and blocking them then websites will be blocked".  Anand further referred to high court's 2023 order in actor Anil Kapoor's case with respect to the phrasealogy of the order. 

The court thereafter said, "Yes, we will pass an order". 

Meanwhile Google's counsel said, "As far as google is concerned a majority of links have been uploaded by defendants 10-14. My lords may consider passing a tiered order".

The court however, remarked, "Tiered order can be passed if the identity of those parties are known. Problem here is that parties here are joined through you...therefore you will have to give BSI(Basic Subscriber Information). After BSI is given they (plaintiff) will have to join them (defendant) as party. here there are unknown defendants...they have joined only through channel. They have joined only through YouTube. You will have to give BSI, after that notice and summons can be issued. That it will take a lot of time. You can do it in the meanwhile". 

Google's counsel further said, "In that respect, we will take it down...In so far as us ofcourse because these are unidentified parties, but perhaps an observation can be made that they should also take down the links that they have uploaded on any social media might also be considered. Once they are identified notices go to them, perhaps it would create a deterrent".  

The matter is next listed on January 15, 2026. 

Bachchan was represented by Advocates Pravin Anand, ⁠Ameet Naik, ⁠Madhu Gadodia, ⁠Dhruv Anand and Udita Patro

Case title: ABHISHEK BACHCHAN v/s THE BOLLYWOOD TEE SHOP & ORS.

CS(COMM)-960/2025