Delhi High Court Protects Amitabh Bachchan’s Personality Rights [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has decreed actor Amitabh Bachchan’s 2022 suit protecting his publicity and personality rights, partly on a settlement with four defendants and partly by summary judgment against defendants who did not file written statements, and has extended the decree to unidentified “John Doe” infringers.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the judgment on 05.11.2026 in CS(COMM) 819/2022, deciding I.A. 30837/2026 and I.A. 30836/2026. The suit sought a permanent injunction against misappropriation of the plaintiff’s publicity rights, passing off and damages.

The plaintiff alleged that defendant no. 1, Rajat Nagi, created a mobile app “Amitabh Bachchan Video Call”, and that defendant no. 2 circulated WhatsApp messages with his photograph to promote a purported “Kaun Banega Crorepati” lottery. Defendant no. 3, Manoj Publications, allegedly sold a quiz book with his image on the cover, defendants no. 4 and 5 sold T-shirts and wall posters, and defendants no. 6 and 8 were registrants of the domain names amitabhbachchan.com and amitabhbachchan.in. An ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted on 25.11.2022, including against John Does.

Under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, the plaintiff and defendants no. 1, 3, 5 and 8 jointly sought a decree on their settlement. The defendants acknowledged his publicity and privacy rights. They said they had deleted the app, stopped publishing the book and selling the posters, and that the .in domain was deleted in November 2022 without any gain. Each undertook not to use his name, image, voice or likeness without permission, and the plaintiff gave up his remaining claims against them. The court found the compromise in writing, signed, lawful and capable of being decreed, and decreed the suit against them accordingly.

The plaintiff separately sought judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC against defendants no. 2, 4, 6 and 9, whose right to file written statements was closed on 25.09.2023, and against the John Does. Citing Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad, the court said the rule is not to be applied mechanically, but that no disputed question of fact arose, since no defendant had contested the claim and others had accepted the plaintiff’s rights.

The court cited Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers for the principle that “the right to control commercial use of human identity is the right to publicity.” It held that the plaintiff’s identifiable name and photographs were used commercially, without consent, suggesting his endorsement, and that Rule 27 of the Delhi High Court IPR Division Rules, 2022 allows summary judgment where leading ex-parte evidence would merely repeat the plaint.

The decree also operates against defendant no. 10, the John Does, given the continuing anonymous misuse of his persona through websites, apps, posters and messaging platforms. The plaintiff was given liberty to file fresh proceedings on any new cause of action. The 25.11.2022 injunction merged with the decree, the suit and pending applications were disposed of, and the hearing fixed for 16.11.2026 was cancelled.

Appearances:

For the Plaintiff: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Ameet Naik, Ms. Madhu Gadodia and others, Advocates.

For Defendant No. 1: Mr. S. C. Singhal and Mr. Parth Mahajan, Advocates.

For Defendant No. 3: Mr. Vinay Mohan Sharma, Advocate.

For Defendant No. 5: Ms. Tina Garg, Mr. M. K. Ghosh and Mr. Annirudh Gupta, Advocates, with Mr. Siddharth Gupta, AR.

For Defendant No. 8: Mr. Kushal Kumr and Ms. Tanya Manik, Advocates.

Case Title: Amitabh Bachchan vs. Rajat Nagi & Ors., CS(COMM) 819/2022

[Read Judgment]