Karan Johar moves Delhi High Court to protect his personality rights
The Delhi High Court has passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of Bollywood filmmaker and producer Karan Johar.
Johar in his lawsuit claimed that various entities, including John Does (unknown entities), have been using his name, image etc without his consent for monetary gains.
In this plea, Johar has also alleged unauthorised sale of merchandise using his name and image, disparity and obscenity, domain name, impersonation and fake profile.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has ordered take down of “disparaging material” against Johar, including videos, memes and social media posts.
The Court held that since the social media accounts mentioned in the suit were unauthorizedly using Johar’s name, they were liable to be taken down in view of the objection raised by the filmmaker.
The Court restrained defendants Perfect Privacy LLC and Giphy from publishing any material which infringes the personality rights of Johar and directed them to take down the infringing URLs mentioned in the suit.
The Court further directed defendant Godaddy India Web Services Private Limited- which provided an ‘AI Voice Swap Generator’ regarding Johar and featuring his image, to suspend and lock the impugned domain name for the website.
The Court also ordered suspension of the name for the website available at https:/beta.opedia.ai/. Further, Justice Arora restrained the defendants from utilizing Karan Johar’s name, his acronym ‘KJo’, likeness, image, voice, personality or any other aspects of his persona to create any merchandise, or misusing the said attributes using technological tools such as Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, deep fakes, face morphing, GIFs either for monetary gains or otherwise.
After similar moves by Aishwarya Rai and Abhishek Bachchan last week, filmmaker and TV personality Karan Johar had approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights.
Read order here.
Multiplexes, producers move Karnataka High Court against ₹200 cap on film ticket prices
The state government on September 12 issued rules capping ticket prices at Rs 200 (excluding taxes).
The cap is introduced and executed at cinemas across Karnataka and cinemas have implemented it.
The Karnataka High Court on 16th September, 2025 heard a joint petition by the Multiplex Association of India (MAI) and a PVR INOX shareholder challenging the state’s ₹200 cap on cinema ticket prices. The petitioners argued that applying a uniform price ceiling across all theatres, including high-cost multiplexes, is arbitrary and unreasonable.
MAI, contended that customers should have the choice to pay more for premium cinema experiences and that the cap imposes an unjust restriction on business, unrelated to consumer protection. It was further submitted on behalf of MAI that a similar cap was imposed seven years ago but was withdrawn following legal challenges.
Hombale Films, added that the parent rules only address licensing and construction of cinemas, not ticket pricing, and that arbitrary caps could impact producers’ ability to recover investments. Keystone Entertainments supported similar arguments.
The state argued that the cap is in the public interest, citing powers under the Karnataka Cinema Act and Article 38 of the Constitution. The Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC) expressed interest in intervening but was asked to file an impleading application.
The court will continue hearing the matter on September 23.
Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Against Release Of ‘Jolly LLB 3’, Says Judges Not Affected By Mockery
The Bombay High Court on 17th September, 2025 dismissed a PIL which sought directions against release of the movie “Jolly LL.B 3” on the ground that the film mocks the judiciary. The film subsequently hit the theatres on September 19, 2025.
Petitioner submitted that the trailer of the film itself is objectionable as in one of the scenes, judges are called as “Mamus.”, which in itself is mockery of justice. The bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, however, refused to consider this ground.
A similar plea was earlier dismissed by the Allahabad High Court, stating that it found ‘nothing objectionable’ in the film’s trailer/teaser that could be said to scandalise the legal fraternity.
Delhi High Court Grants Dynamic+ Injunction To JioStar, Restrains Rogue Websites From Illegally Streaming Jolly LLB 3
The Delhi High Court recently passed a dynamic+ injunction restraining various rogue websites from illegally streaming, hosting or screening Bollywood film “Jolly LLB 3” which hit the theatres on September 19, 2025.
Justice Tejas Karia said that any delay in blocking access to the rogue websites could lead to financial losses for JioStar, and an irreparable breach of their copyright in the movie.
For context, JioStar India Private Limited commissioned Kangra Talkies for the development and line production of the movie. Kangra Talkies has confirmed that JioStar is the sole and exclusive owner of all the rights, including all the Intellectual Property Rights and Exploitation Rights of the Film, including the script.
The Court passed the ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of JioStar in its copyright infringement suit against the rogue websites.
Justice Karia ordered suspension and blocking of the DNRs of the rogue websites and also blocking and deactivation of the websites.
The Court further directed that if any website, which is not primarily an infringing website, is blocked in pursuance of the order, it can approach the Court by giving an undertaking that it does not intend to do any illegal dissemination of the content over which JioStar has Copyright.
It added that the Court would then consider modifying the injunction if the facts and circumstances so warrant.
Read order here.
The Great Indian Kapil Show in legal trouble; Hera Pheri producer slaps Rs. 25cr legal notice over Kiku Sharda’s Baburao act
The comedy world has been shaken by a legal storm. The third season of The Great Indian Kapil Show aired its finale episode on Saturday (20.09.25) with Bollywood superstar Akshay Kumar as the guest. However, the celebrations were overshadowed by a serious controversy involving comedian Kiku Sharda’s act.
As per reports, producer Firoz Nadiadwala, who owns the blockbuster Hera Pheri franchise, has issued a Rs 25 crore legal notice to the OTT platform and the makers of the show. The notice claims that Kiku Sharda’s act, where he mimicked the iconic character Baburao Ganpatrao Apte, played by Paresh Rawal, was performed without permission, violating copyright and character rights.
Nadiadwala’s notice demands an immediate public apology, removal of the controversial skit, and compensation for damages within two days. According to News18, the producer said in a statement, “Baburao is not just a character, but the soul of Hera Pheri. This legacy was built with our sweat, vision, and creativity, and no one can hijack or misuse it without our permission. Paresh Rawalji nurtured the role and put his heart and soul into it.
The legal notice highlights multiple violations, including copyright infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act. It also points to the infringement of exclusive rights under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, which governs the communication of a work to the public and its inclusion in films.
Gaming law to take effect from 1 October, 2025 & Data Privacy rules to go live by 28th September, 2025
The much-discussed Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025, which effectively banned India’s $23-billion online money gaming industry last month, will be implemented from 1 October, IT minister Ashwini Vaishnaw said on 18th September.
The rules for implementation of Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023—the draft of which was published by the ministry of electronics and information technology (Meity) on 3 January—is also ready, and will be notified by 28 September, the minister told reporters in New Delhi. The two landmark regulations that come into force in the next two weeks are likely to set in motion a plethora of compliance requirements.
The gaming law prohibits all money-based gaming operations, payments, promotions and advertisements. Industry groups warned it could wipe out 200,000 jobs and shutter 400 firms.
A parliamentary panel has recommended that the government examine the feasibility of licensing requirements for artificial intelligence (AI) content creators and make it mandatory to label AI-generated videos and posts, in a move aimed at tackling the growing menace of misinformation and deepfakes.
The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Communications and Information Technology, chaired by Nishikant Dubey, said the Centre must put in place legal and technological mechanisms to identify and prosecute those involved in the creation and spread of such content.
The draft report has been submitted to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and will be tabled in Parliament in the upcoming session. It calls for “close coordination between the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), and other Ministries and departments’.
The panel noted that MeitY has already formed a nine-member body to examine issues arising from deepfakes. Two ongoing initiatives include a project on fake speech detection using deep learning frameworks and another on designing software to flag manipulated videos and images. The report observed that while AI has limitations in fact-checking since it relies on pre-existing online data, it can play a critical role in identifying potentially misleading content.
At the same time, the panel urged consensus-building with media houses and industry stakeholders while framing these measures, to ensure that regulation does not stifle innovation or free expression.
ADANI ENTERPRISES DEFAMATION ROW
Editors Guild voices ‘deep concern’ over orders directing media platforms to remove content on Adani Group
Several journalists and content creators said they have received notices from YouTube and the government regarding the removal of “unverified and ex facie defamatory” content related to Adani Enterprises Limited (AEL) following a court order, a development termed “troubling” by the Editors Guild of India.
The Guild voiced “deep concern” over the recent order of a Delhi court that restrained nine journalists, activists and entities from publishing or circulating “unverified, unsubstantiated and ex facie defamatory” reports about AEL, and directed the removal of such content within five days.
“More disturbingly, the order further empowers the corporate entity to keep forwarding URLs and links of any content it considers defamatory to intermediaries or government agencies, who are then obliged to remove such content within 36 hours,” the Guild said in a statement. The Guild termed “equally troubling” the action by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, which issued notices to platforms including YouTube and Instagram, ordering the removal of more than 138 links and 83 posts.
The Guild is concerned that such blanket powers granted to a corporate entity, coupled with ministerial action in issuing takedown directions, are a step towards censorship, the statement said.
Delhi Court Quashes Ex-Parte Gag Order Restricting Four Journalists From Reporting On Adani Group
Against the said order, four journalists Ravi Nair, Abir Dasgupta, Ayaskant Das and Ayush Joshi preferred an appeal and District Judge Ashish Aggarwal of the Rohini Courts passed the orders on 18th September, 2025 quashing the ex-parte order gag passed by the lower court on September 06, restraining ‘defamatory’ publications about the Adani Group.
The judge observed that the articles had been in public domain for long and hence, the civil judge ought to have heard the journalists before directing take down of their articles.
Significant to note that another judge of the Rohini Court has reserved verdict on journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta’s plea against the gag order.
Background
This came after the Adani Enterprises had filed a suit wherein alleged that the defendants were running “agenda driven” websites and were repeatedly publishing baseless and defamatory content against the Adani Group, its Founder and Chairman.
It was averred that apart from the websites in question, defamatory material was shared widely on Social Medial platforms, other websites and several John Doe persons were publishing the same across various media and websites.
It was contended that Adani Enterprises was being maliciously and deliberately attacked its operations were hampered globally, droving away their investors, wiping off massive amount of funds of investors and created panic in the market.
Vide the impugned order, the Court had directed the journalists to expunge the defamatory material against Adani Group from their respective articles or social media posts or tweets and if the same is not feasible, remove the same within 5 days.
Newslaundry and Ravish Kumar move Delhi High Court Challenging Centre’s Directive For Removal Of Content Against Adani Companies
Digital news platform Newslaundry and famous Journalist Ravish Kumar have independently approached the Delhi High Court and challenged a direction issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) asking digital news publishers to take down multiple reports and videos concerning the Adani Group of Companies.
Both the matters will be listed before the Bench of Justice Sachin Datta on Monday (22.09.25).
In the two separate writ petitions filed under Article 226, the communication issued by the Ministry on September 16 to Newslaundry and Ravish Kumar, as well as many other independent journalists and content creators such as Dhruv Rathee, Abhisar Sarma, Deshbhakt (Akash Banerjee), Paranjoy Guha Thakurta etc. has been challenged. The Ministry asked them to “take appropriate action” to comply with an ex-parte order passed by a Delhi Civil Court on September 16 directing the removal of defamatory and unverified content published against Gautam Adani and the Adani group of companies.
It has been contended that they were not parties in the civil suit, and the order passed by the Court did not refer to any content published by them. They also stated that they got information about the Court’s order only through the communication issued by the MIB on September 16.
They contended that the MIB’s directive was an “administrative overreach” and “inherently arbitrary exercise of executive power” by directing action on the basis of an order passed in a civil dispute between private parties.
They further contended that the Court’s order only applied to “defamatory” and “incorrect reports” and without a determination on this aspect, a blanket take-down order cannot be issued.
It has also been contended that the impugned order represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional exercise of executive power that strikes at the very foundation of democratic governance, press freedom and the separation of powers doctrine enshrined in the Constitution of India. As per the plea, the chilling effect of such governmental overreach extends beyond individual content creators to the entire ecosystem of independent journalism and public discourse in the country.
The petition seeks a declaration that prior restraint on journalistic content requires strict constitutional compliance with Article 19(2) safeguards and that the same has been violated by the Central Government.
It further seeks a direction on the Centre to refrain from issuing similar orders without constitutional and statutory compliance.
A further direction is sought on the Union Government to establish clear guidelines for any content-related administrative action, establishing safeguards against executive overreach in content regulation while protecting journalists and content creators.
