|
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of Acharya Balkrishna and directed the removal of vulgar, defamatory and insulting social media content against him. The order was passed by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
Balkrishna, a businessman, author, and co-founder and managing director of Patanjali Ayurved, has approached the Court claiming that his personality rights are being misused through deepfake videos and other manipulated online content. He is also known as a close associate of yoga guru Ramdev and has been listed among India's most influential personalities. In his plea, Balkrishna said that fake and edited videos circulating online can mislead people and harm his reputation. His counsel argued that such content may confuse a large number of viewers, especially those in rural areas who may not be able to easily identify fake digital material. The suit seeks protection of personality rights, which include a person's name, image, voice and identity from unauthorised use. It also raises concerns about the growing misuse of deepfake technology, where AI is used to create or alter videos and images in a misleading way. Senior Advocate Arvind Nayyar appeared for Balkrishna, along with Advocates Yagyawalkya Singh, Divya Swamy, and Anubhav Agrawal. The case highlights the rising number of disputes related to deepfake content and online reputation, especially involving public figures. Courts are increasingly dealing with such issues as digital content becomes more widespread. Earlier, during the hearing on Monday, the High Court had asked Balkrishna to narrow down his request for the removal of online content, saying that the plea was too broad. The Court observed that a public figure must be open to criticism, satire and commentary, and it cannot pass blanket orders to take down content without examining specific instances. The Court had also raised concerns that the list of links submitted included news reports from well-known media organisations that are not part of the case. It questioned whether such content could be removed without hearing those publishers. Further, the Court said it cannot pass general or "omnibus" orders against unknown persons and noted that some of the content mentioned included satire and caricatures, which public figures are expected to tolerate. Balkrishna's counsel clarified that they are not seeking the removal of content related to court proceedings, including material linked to Supreme Court judgments. Taking note of this, the The court directed him to file a revised and clear list identifying the exact content that allegedly violates his personality rights. (ANI)
|
