The Delhi High Court has directed major social media intermediaries to act on a plea filed by former Indian cricketer and commentator Sunil Gavaskar seeking protection of his personality rights. The Court’s directions require those intermediaries to treat his suit as a formal complaint under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and to take necessary action within seven days. The bench hearing the matter was led by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.
Gavaskar approached the Court alleging that his name, image, persona and likeness were being used without authorisation on various social media and online platforms, including content that he claimed was infringing or misleading. In his petition, he pointed to instances such as fake critical comments attributed to him regarding India’s men’s cricket team coach and other players, as well as fabricated online merchandise, images and videos that misrepresented his identity for commercial or deceptive purposes. Gavaskar argued that such unauthorised use violated his personality or publicity rights — the legal entitlement to control and protect the use of one’s public identity, including name, photograph, voice and likeness. The petition named multiple defendants, including intermediaries and “John Doe” entities who uploaded or hosted the infringing material.
During the hearing, the Court emphasised that before seeking direct judicial relief, Gavaskar must first submit his grievances to the social media intermediaries. The Court directed him to provide specific URLs in respect of which takedown action was sought within 48 hours so that the intermediaries could examine those links. The Court then instructed the intermediaries to treat Gavaskar’s complaint as a formal IT Rules complaint and decide on it within one week from the date of the order. If the intermediaries had any reservations about particular weblinks submitted by Gavaskar, they were directed to inform him promptly.
In making these directions, the Court reiterated that the established procedure under the intermediary guidelines requires initial engagement with platforms before seeking judicial intervention. The judge observed that this mechanism — where a plaint is treated as an IT Rules complaint — was designed to allow social media and digital platforms an opportunity to address and remove infringing content at the first instance, thereby potentially resolving grievances without further litigation. The bench acknowledged that many public figures have faced similar issues involving unauthorised use of identity online and noted that parties often resist approaching intermediaries directly, even though the rules require it as a first step.
The Court’s order aligns with other recent personality rights cases filed before the Delhi High Court by well-known public figures, including actors, artists, content creators and commentators, who have sought judicial protection against misuse of their identity and digital likeness. In those cases, the Court has granted interim directions requiring platforms to process and act on complaints under the IT Rules within specified timelines.
By directing the intermediaries to act within a week and outlining the procedural steps that must be followed, the High Court’s order in Sunil Gavaskar’s case underscores the growing judicial emphasis on protecting personality and publicity rights in the digital age. It reflects the judiciary’s approach to balancing the need for quick redress against online misuse of identity with the procedural protocols set out for engaging online intermediaries before approaching courts for relief.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.