New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has declined to order the removal of a parody video featuring PhysicsWallah founder Alakh Pandey, while cautioning that personality rights cannot be used to suppress satire, caricature or other legally permissible forms of expression.
According to news reports, Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani made the observation while hearing Pandey’s suit seeking protection against the alleged unauthorised and objectionable use of his name, image, likeness, voice and other elements of his personality online.
A parody and satirical video concerning Pandey was played before the court during the proceedings. After viewing it, the court declined to direct its removal, drawing a distinction between expression protected as satire or parody and content involving unauthorised commercial exploitation or other objectionable uses of a person’s identity.
The court said it would examine whether the scope of Pandey’s personality rights claim was broader than necessary and stressed that such rights should not become a mechanism to prevent the dissemination of information concerning alleged wrongdoing or eliminate entire forms of expression such as caricature, lampooning and parody.
The court referred to an earlier Delhi High Court ruling in DM Entertainment vs Baby Gift House and Others while examining the limits of personality and publicity rights.
Pandey, founder of edtech company PhysicsWallah, has alleged that his personality has been misused through social media posts, Telegram stickers, videos, websites and other online content.
Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for Pandey, told the court that images of the educator had been converted into Telegram stickers and commercially exploited without permission. He also raised objections to sexually demeaning and abusive material that, according to Pandey, could damage his reputation among students.
Pandey’s counsel maintained that the case was not against legitimate criticism but concerned content that allegedly crossed the line into obscene, unauthorised or commercially exploitative use.
The observations came in proceedings following an interim order passed on August 5.
The High Court restricted its protection to specific categories of allegedly objectionable material instead of issuing a sweeping injunction against all uses of Pandey’s personality.
The court granted interim relief against content it found prima facie objectionable, including sexually vulgar or obscene portrayals, unauthorised commercial exploitation of Pandey’s persona and certain forms of impersonation or misuse.
It also issued summons to defendants accused of uploading the material and directed intermediaries including Google, Telegram, X and Automattic Inc to provide basic subscriber information relating to persons behind websites and accounts identified in the proceedings.
Pandey was further permitted to bring other allegedly infringing mirror, alphanumeric or redirect websites to the attention of internet service providers and domain name registrars.
The court, however, clarified that intermediaries cannot independently decide whether a website should be blocked merely on the request of a private party.
Their role would be limited to technically verifying whether a newly identified website was a mirror, redirect or related version of a website already covered by the court’s injunction.