Tabu gets court relief in personality rights case

On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court ordered intermediaries to remove several websites hosting content that actor Tabu claimed violated her personality rights and was defamatory or obscene.

Additionally, the court stated that it would designate an amicus curiae to look into more general issues that arise in these kinds of cases.

Hearing the case with senior advocate Swati Sukumar representing Tabu, Justice Jyoti Singh ordered several intermediaries to remove content that the actor had found on social media, e-commerce listings, and websites containing allegedly explicit or derogatory material.

Content from Tabu’s films constituted a significant portion of the hearing. The actor’s attorney claimed that certain clips were being promoted using search phrases that objectified the actor and had been slowed down or retitled in a way that sexualized specific scenes.

Sukumar argued that the volume and nature of the content, as well as the way it kept reappearing through new accounts and posts, went beyond a typical infringement argument. “This is not just any actress. My name is there,” she told the court, claiming that the content’s search phrases amounted to intentional objectification.

During the hearing, an attorney for one of the platforms brought up another personality rights case scheduled for the same day, claiming it involved an attempt to use personality rights litigation to remove allegedly defamatory content.

The court noted that the questions posed extended beyond the current instance. Citing previous coordinate Bench rulings that required litigants to first submit content to platforms before approaching the court, Justice Singh noted that an alternative strategy might be needed in situations involving genuinely harmful content.

“You have no idea what those pornographic videos were… they were as bad as you could get. If one were to leave it to them… and take, say, about two or three weeks, that kind of content [would have already spread],” the court observed orally.

The platforms’ attorneys cited existing protections, such as automatic detection systems, in-app grievance procedures, the IT Rules’ grievance redressal mechanism, and the Madras High Court’s directives regarding non-consensual photographs.

While acknowledging those procedures, the court noted that the primary challenge was keeping such content off the internet in the first place.

Justice Singh said, “The problem does not lie in policy framing or implementation. The problem lies in how to have a mechanism where they can be nipped in the bud so they just do not go online.”

Furthermore, the court stated that it would appoint an amicus curiae to assist with the broader legal matters.

Requesting counsel to support the process as officers of the court, the judge stated, “I will be appointing an amicus. Both sides… maybe we can say that some of these ancillary issues arise, so they can also be framed, and then we will examine them slowly, one by one.”

The matter has been scheduled for another hearing on December 7. The court stated that the exercise will also focus on developing a standard operating procedure for handling similar disputes.