5 min readApr 9, 2026 03:40 PM IST First published on: Apr 9, 2026 at 03:40 PM ISTWritten by Saumya VermaOn March 24, in a suit filed by Acharya Balkrishna, the managing director of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd., the Delhi High Court granted unusually wide-ranging ex parte relief. The court has ordered platforms to remove certain memes, cartoons, and satirical content about Balkrishna. Also, it has limited future content related to him across social media, websites, blogs, the Metaverse, blockchain, and even any AI-driven programme. It requested that Meta reveal the identities of the anonymous writers who posted criticisms on Balkrishna and ordered the immediate removal of such content.A Missed ChanceThe order stands in sharp contrast to the court’s oral observations a day before. On March 23, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela reportedly advised the plaintiff’s counsel: “If you are going to be a public figure, please be ready for brickbats too”. This statement exemplifies a fundamental tenet of free expression. Individuals in the public eye who choose to step into the limelight and shape public issues must be prepared for greater scrutiny, critique, and even contempt. However, the court granted almost all the reliefs that were sought by the plaintiff. The reasoning provided was brief and lacked substantial engagement with issues surrounding free speech.The Shift in ApproachAdvertisementThe existing intellectual property laws do not explicitly define “personality rights”. The Copyright Act, 1957, defines the term “performer” and provides for “special rights” as outlined in its Section 38. However, the definition of “performer” is not exhaustive and fails to fully capture the legal persona of a public figure. The judiciary has built the concept of “personality rights” through common law, using the right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as established in K S Puttaswamy vs Union of India (2017). The Delhi High Court’s 2010 judgment in D M Entertainment Pvt Ltd vs Baby Gift House restricted the right in question. This primarily applies to the unauthorised use of someone’s image and reputation for commercial gain, to market products, or to misleadingly imply endorsement. The recent order has surpassed this limit.The Balkrishna Order and Free Speech GapsBalkrishna approached the court seeking the removal of critical online content about his public conduct, much of which drew from the Supreme Court’s order on misleading advertisements and false claims of Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. The legal question involved was not purely commercial in nature. It was based on political and social satire on matters of public interest, which mainly included consumer health and advertising standards. In the course of the hearing, the counsel for Meta characterised the concerned posts as “pure parody or, at best, lampooning”. The counsel urged the court to weigh the importance of the fundamental right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) before issuing any broad instructions.The court recognised the prominent public image of Balkrishna and indicated that certain links appeared derogatory as well as defamatory, which violated the personality rights of the plaintiff. The order did not cite any supporting rulings in detail. Arguments grounded in free speech and expression received relatively limited attention.Between Dignity and DissentAdvertisementThe recent order prioritised personality rights over the right to free speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a). In Shreya Singhal vs Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court emphasised that any restrictions on free speech should be precisely demarcated. Merely annoyance, damage to reputation, or an unflattering depiction of the public figure does not warrant restrictions and the invocation of personality rights.A Different Approachyou may likeThe Madras High Court has adopted a narrower approach while deciding similar kinds of cases. In a suit involving actor Kamal Haasan, the Madras High Court granted the interim relief but confined it to the instances of clear commercial misuse, which involved AI-driven misuse of Haasan’s image. However, the court clarified that its order does not restrict caricature, satire, or other permissible creative expression. The present order seems to overlook such established precedents.Extending restrictions to social media, blockchain, and any AI programme lacks clear reasoning. This could set a troubling standard for pre-emptive censorship in digital environments that are still evolving. Anonymous expressions have long protected the dissent against public figures. In today’s meme-driven digital discourse, such measures may deter people from participating in public debate. The case is now listed before the Joint Registrar on May 26, and will come up before the Delhi High Court on September 24. At that stage, defendants will get the chance to challenge the ex parte order. This will open the door for a more substantive contest on both facts and law.The writer is assistant professor of law, Soundarya Group of Institutions, Bangalore