Delhi High Court Issues Landmark Order in Sunil Gavaskar Personality Rights Case
Sunil Gavaskar has approached the Delhi High Court to protect his personality rights after alleged misuse of his name and image on digital platforms. On Friday, the Court issued directions to intermediaries to treat Gavaskar’s lawsuit as a formal complaint and begin the takedown process for content infringing his publicity and persona rights.
Delhi High Court Directives for Digital Intermediaries
During the hearing, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora emphasized that plaintiffs must first use intermediary grievance mechanisms before seeking judicial intervention. The Court instructed intermediaries to act on Gavaskar’s complaint and address the infringing content. “Let them act on the complaint. I don’t understand why parties are resisting it or why they are not availing that mechanism,” the judge remarked.
The Court highlighted that intermediary grievance-redressal systems would “largely take care” of the plaintiff’s issues, noting that judicial intervention is only required for unresolved matters. This approach ensures that courts can adjudicate disputes more effectively without acting blindly.
Process for URL Submission and Response
The High Court recorded that intermediaries would provide Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) and IP details of the alleged infringers. Specific directions included:
- Defendants 7, 10, and 11 must treat the plaint as a formal complaint.
- The plaintiff must provide URLs of infringing content within 48 hours through counsel.
- Intermediaries must communicate their decision within a week of receiving the URLs.
- The matter will next be heard on December 22.
Protection of Personality and Publicity Rights
Senior Advocate Gopal Jain, representing Gavaskar, emphasized that the cricketer seeks protection of his personality and publicity rights. The lawsuit cites fake comments attributed to Gavaskar regarding Gautam Gambhir, Virat Kohli, and other cricketers. The petition aims to restrain unauthorized use of Gavaskar’s name, image, likeness, voice, and other personal identifiers on digital platforms.
This litigation marks a milestone, as Gavaskar becomes the first Indian cricketer to initiate personality-rights litigation, extending such legal protection beyond the film and entertainment industry.
Expanding Jurisprudence on Personality Rights in India
In recent years, the Delhi High Court has recognized the personality rights of public figures including Amitabh Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Anil Kapoor, Nagarjuna, Abhishek Bachchan, and digital creator Raj Shamani. These rulings confirm that individuals have exclusive rights to control commercial and digital use of their persona, ensuring protection against misuse in the age of widespread online content sharing.
Significance for Indian Cricket and Public Figures
Gavaskar’s case sets an important precedent for sports personalities in India. By filing this lawsuit, he underscores the growing need for athletes to safeguard their public image and identity across social media and digital platforms. In an era where online impersonation and misuse of personal brand are increasingly common, this legal action highlights the significance of protecting one’s reputation in the digital space.
This move could serve as a wake-up call for other cricketers and sports professionals to be more vigilant about how their likeness, name, and achievements are used online. By taking proactive measures, athletes can assert control over their personal and professional image, ensuring that their hard-earned reputation is not exploited or misrepresented for commercial or malicious purposes.
Looking Ahead
The Delhi High Court’s orders indicate a proactive stance on digital content disputes. By directing intermediaries to act promptly and establishing a clear procedural framework, the case highlights evolving legal mechanisms for protecting public figures in India. Gavaskar’s pursuit of personality rights marks a shift toward stronger legal safeguards for athletes and celebrities in the digital era.
The case also reinforces the judiciary’s increasing awareness of digital misuse, balancing the rights of intermediaries and individuals while safeguarding personal and commercial interests in the modern media landscape.
Responses