[A big thanks to Praharsh for his inputs on the post.]
In Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory Private Ltd. & Ors (pdf), Justice R.I. Chagla has delivered yet another drop in the bucket of multiple orders protecting personality rights that have been coming up in the past few years. The Bombay High Court order of 7th March 2025, making the interim injunction in favour of Karan Johar absolute, has added more fuel to the fire of the debate over personality rights protection. In short, the personality rights debate is centred around the clash between individuals wanting to protect their likeness for commercial use and concerns that broad protections could limit creativity and restrict public access to cultural expressions. Readers can find past discussions on this here. However, it has become more common to uphold these rights without thoroughly reasoning each decision, and this case is an example of that. It begs us to ask: Are we heading in the right direction? What about freedom of expression? Are all these rulings equivalent in depth and analysis, or has it become a trend to uphold personality rights without thorough scrutiny?
This two-part post will attempt to answer some of these questions, but first, a brief overview of what the court held in this case.
The Fame Game: How Did it Play Out in the Court?
Celebrated filmmaker and Bollywood icon Karan Johar took legal action to protect his identity. He filed a suit before the Bombay High Court, claiming infringement of his personality rights.
The lawsuit was directed against IndiaPride Advisory Pvt. Ltd., along with the writers and directors of the cinematographic film titled “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar/Shaadi Ke Director Karan Johar.” Johar (the original one) alleged that the film’s title unlawfully associated him with the project, misleading the public and infringing upon his personality rights. Through this suit, he sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using his name and persona without authorization.
The film was scheduled to be released on June 14, 2024 and Johar claims that these trailers and posters are causing irreparable loss and damage to his goodwill and reputation. The Court had granted an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the director’s name and personality on June 13, 2024. IndiaPride sought a vacation of the ad-interim order, which the SB made absolute instead, based on four major observations:
- ‘Celebrity Rights’ and Whether They Exist in India
IndiaPride’s argument to refuse injunction since there exist no “celebrity rights” under the law was held to be misplaced. The analysis for this was muti-layered. Firstly, Johar argued to not be claiming “celebrity rights” but enforcing his personality and publicity rights, which are not separate but part of the same legal concept. The issue was IndiaPride’s unauthorized use of the Plaintiff’s name and personality in the film title, violating their rights to privacy and publicity. IndiaPride countered this using DHC’s Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. v. Eros International’s judgement that made it clear that “celebrity rights” are not distinct from the rights of ordinary citizens. This was then countered by Johar using Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Sarogi, which recognized celebrities’ right to control the commercial use of their image when a third party falsely associates them with a product or service. Interestingly, IndiaPride then used Krishna Kishore Singh itself to argue that once a film is censored, its release can’t be challenged, and the injunction to not be granted.
However, the Court ruled that the facts of Krishna Kishore case are different, making those rulings irrelevant here. Moreover, the Court concluded that IndiaPride’s reliance on “celebrity rights” was misplaced, as Johar is enforcing personality and publicity rights, not claiming “celebrity rights” and Dr. Reddy will not be relevant here. While it’s evident that ‘celebrity rights’ as a concept isn’t contained anywhere in any of the Acts or in any separate law, not making them statutory rights per se, the SB has missed the opportunity of better defining the distinction between the scope of celebrity rights and the personality and publicity rights.
- Does the CBFC Certificate Restrict Later Action?
Merely because a Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) Certificate has been obtained for the said film, it does not restrict the Plaintiff’s right to take action against it for violation of their rights. This was based on the dismissal of Krishna Kishore’s relevance to the present case, as discussed in point 1.
This seems to make sense given that the certificates of the CBFC aren’t absolute either and are subject to the remedy of appeal. As per Section 5C of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, to appeal a certification decision of the CBFC, an aggrieved applicant can approach the Film Certification Appellate Tribunal (FCAT) within 30 days of the CBFC order.
- Can’t Disclaimers Get the Job Done?
IndiaPride’s proposal to include a disclaimer in the Film’s starting was held insufficient to protect the personality rights and brand name of the Plaintiff. The SB noted that a disclaimer suffices only on a case-to-case basis, and in the present case, “the use of the Plaintiff’s name “Karan Johar” is not in any manner, way or form crucial to the context of the said film.” (Para 73). From the POV of a mere layman, one could guess why the name is actually relevant to the whole plot in the way it suggests a clever parodical use of a famous director’s name in a film with two directors trying to make it big in the film industry. But the court seems to have other opinions.
The SB also reasoned that “restricting the use of the Plaintiff’s name in the said film would not affect freedom of speech or creative liberty of the Respondents.” Since a case-by-case basis introduces a level of subjectivity that leads to inconsistent rulings, this case may set a precedent that overly favours celebrity rights at the expense of creative freedom. This uncertainty could lead to a slippery slope which might deter filmmakers and writers from exploring certain themes or characters and avoid referencing real individuals altogether, thereby stifling satire, parody, and other legitimate forms of expression.
- Can’t Tweaking the Name of the Film Cut It?
The SB noted how the addition of a mere “aur” between the terms ‘Karan’ and ‘Johar’ does not help the case, and mentions of “director” and “Dharma” in the context of the title and in the movie can negatively impact the goodwill of the author. The Court acknowledged Johar’s contention of how the Wikipedia page and news articles on Karan Johar did pop up even when an “aur” was inserted between his name. In this context, the SB noted in Para 70: “Plaintiff’s name “Karan Johar” is a peculiar name coupled with his popularity as well as being a well known producer and director in the Bollywood industry, the Plaintiff’s name has attained distinctive indicia. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has personality rights which required protection and has a right to sue the Defendants from misuse of the Plaintiff’s name.”
It is difficult to figure out what could possibly constitute a way of adequate differentiation in this case and how much alteration was necessary to have balanced artistic expression with personality rights. Part II of this post (here) will analyze this order in the context of the general trend set by precedents over the past decade by the courts and assess how much weight the extant Bombay High Court order holds.