“Be Ready for Brickbats”: Delhi HC on Balkrishna’s Personality Rights Plea

The Delhi High Court, in the matter concerning Acharya Balkrishna’s personality rights claim, made strong observations on the limits of such rights when applied to public figures. The case arises from a suit filed by Balkrishna seeking removal of various online content, including news reports and caricatures.

During the hearing, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela remarked that individuals who hold public prominence must be prepared to face criticism and even ridicule. The Court emphasised that public discourse often includes satire and commentary, which cannot be restricted unless it crosses the line into humiliation or defamation.

The judge observed, “You have newspapers, you have cartoonists. They do make caricatures, they do make fun of people, right? Now, whether that can be taken now? If you are going to be a public figure, please be ready for brickbats too. People will make fun. We can’t stop that, unless it is disparaging or something that puts your respect down or humiliating.”

The proceedings revealed that Balkrishna had requested the removal of content published by several media organisations, including reports by major outlets and online commentary related to adverse observations made by the Supreme Court against him and Patanjali.

Counsel representing Google opposed the plea, calling it “very dangerous.” It was argued that Balkrishna was attempting to have multiple news reports taken down without even making the concerned publishers parties to the case. Google further submitted that such actions could set a troubling precedent and cannot be used as an indirect method to challenge content through intermediaries.

The Court also took note of this concern, questioning whether directions could be issued against media houses without hearing them. It reiterated that even in public interest litigation, all affected parties are usually brought before the Court, and a personality rights suit cannot be used to make sweeping or vague allegations.

Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar, appearing for Balkrishna, clarified that his client was willing to exclude any content directly connected to the Supreme Court’s judgement from the scope of removal. He also argued that Balkrishna’s wide following, especially in rural areas, may make it difficult for many people to distinguish between genuine and manipulated digital content, such as deep fakes or altered videos.

Despite this, the Court maintained that the relief sought must be specific and limited. It acknowledged that personality rights are recognised in law, but their enforcement must be carefully balanced against freedom of expression and public interest.

The Bench ultimately advised Balkrishna to narrow down his claims and refine the scope of his request. The matter has been adjourned, with further hearing scheduled for the following day.