Delhi HC Decrees Arjun Kapoor’s Personality-Rights Suit, Orders Government To Take Down Specified Infringing Links

Arjun Kapoor sued multiple commercial entities, online platforms, social-media accounts and John Does, alleging unauthorised use and commercial exploitation of his name, image, likeness and other attributes of his persona, including through online content and merchandise.

By interim order dated 29 April 2026, the Court restrained specified defendants from such unauthorised exploitation, directed removal of identified links and ordered disclosure of basic subscriber information for specified accounts.

Defendants 5 and 6 were later deleted from the array; Defendant 1 sought deletion on the basis of compliance. No defendant controverted the plaint’s factual averments, and the Court noted that several defendants had been proceeded ex parte.

Whether the plaintiff’s uncontroverted pleadings and documents could be treated as admitted so that the suit could be decreed without a full trial.

Whether the plaintiff was entitled to final relief against unauthorised exploitation of his personality and publicity rights, including removal of identified infringing links and a process for addressing subsequently discovered content.

The Court relied on Rule 3 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, holding that where no written statement or affidavit of admission/denial is filed, the plaint averments are liable to be treated as admitted and the accompanying documents as admitted.

It also referred to Rajat Sharma & Anr. v. Tamara Doc & Ors., which permitted plaintiffs to notify platforms of subsequently discovered URLs or content, supported by particulars on affidavit, for the platforms’ independent examination and action under their policies; the plaintiffs could return to court if the platforms did not act.

The Court accepted that unauthorised commercial use of the plaintiff’s identifiable persona could infringe his personality/publicity rights.

The Court found that the identified links and material were being used without the plaintiff’s consent and for commercial exploitation.

Because no defendant controverted the plaint and no written statement or affidavit of admission/denial had been filed, the Court treated the pleadings and documents as admitted and concluded that no disputed factual issue required a trial.

In light of that record and the prior interim order, it made specified restraints final and directed removal of identified links. For later-discovered URLs or content, it adopted the notification-and-review approach described in Rajat Sharma.

It directed Defendants 17 and 18 to take down the infringing links attributable to Defendant 3 that remained active, as well as the links identified in prayer clauses (v)–(viii) of the plaint. It made the interim directions absolute insofar as they concerned Defendants 1, 2, 4, 7–9, 11, 14 and 15.

The plaintiff may notify the relevant platforms of subsequently discovered URLs or content, with supporting particulars on affidavit; if the platforms do not act, the plaintiff may seek further directions from the Court. The suit and pending applications were disposed of, and the next hearing date before the Joint Registrar was cancelled.