Delhi HC Directs Google To Deploy Technology To Remove Content Infringing Sadhguru’s Personality Rights [Read Order]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has delivered a significant order directing Google LLC to employ technological tools to prevent the circulation of misleading and unauthorized content that infringes upon the personality rights of spiritual leader Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev, founder of the Isha Foundation.

Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed the parties to adopt a collaborative approach to identify and remove infringing content using technology, thereby reducing the plaintiff’s burden of repeatedly seeking takedowns of identical or similar content.

The court was addressing a plea filed by Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev and another seeking enforcement of their personality rights and removal of infringing content from various online platforms.

Regarding the nature of the content, counsel for Defendant No. 43 submitted that “the said post would fall within the exceptional category of satire and, therefore, the Court may consider exempting the sharing of the Basic Subscriber Information [‘BSI’] details.”

The court recorded that “Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, learned counsel for the plaintiff, states on instructions that, in view of the submissions that the infringing link is being taken down, the plaintiff is satisfied with the compliance and does not insist on sharing of the BSI details.”

Explaining the rationale for seeking takedown, the plaintiff’s counsel stated that “the plaintiff has sought the takedown of this link since the user was using it for product promotion and commercial gain.”

Similarly, regarding Defendant No. 44, the court noted that “Ms. Amee Rana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Defendant No. 44, states that the said defendant has also complied with the directions for takedown of the infringing links as directed in paragraph 46(iv) of the interim order dated 30.05.2025.”

For Defendant Nos. 46 and 47, the court recorded that “Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, learned counsel for the said defendants, states that they have also complied with the directions at paragraph 46(vi) of the interim order dated 30.05.2025 and will file their compliance affidavit within one (1) week.”

The court addressed specific submissions regarding YouTube and Google’s platform, noting that “Ms. Mamta R. Jha, learned counsel for Defendant No. 45, states that Defendant No. 45 has taken down the URLs as per the directions issued in paragraph 46(v) of the interim order dated 30.05.2025 and has also provided the BSI details to the plaintiff.”

Highlighting the continuing nature of infringement, counsel for Defendant No. 45 stated that “the plaintiff has subsequently sought takedown of additional URLs, which have also been actioned, and the BSI details will be provided within two (2) weeks.”

The plaintiff’s counsel drew the court’s attention to specific examples, stating that “illustratively, the Court may refer to the infringing link available on the platform of YouTube, placed on record at page 247 of the plaintiff’s documents.”

Characterizing the nature of the violation, the plaintiff’s counsel submitted that “the said link posted on YouTube is a gross misrepresentation and falls within the category of misleading representations identified by Google Ads products in its advertisement policy.”

In a crucial submission referencing the IT Rules, the plaintiff’s counsel argued that “in view of Rule 4(4) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, Defendant No. 45 ought to endeavor to put in place technology that identifies identical content so as to obviate the necessity for the plaintiff to repeatedly approach the said defendant for takedown of identical content.”

Responding to these concerns, counsel for Google stated that “Defendant No. 45 is willing to adopt a collaborative approach with the plaintiff to address their concerns and will actively cooperate with the plaintiff in taking down any further links pointed out to them.”

In its final directive, the court stated that “the parties are directed to have a mutual meeting, where the plaintiff can specifically identify the content falling within the exceptions of Google Ads’ policy, and thereafter, Defendant No. 45 must make an endeavor to ensure that identical or similar content is removed through its technology so as to obviate the plaintiff’s burden of searching for such URLs and repeatedly approaching Defendant No. 45 for takedown.”

The court also provided a safeguard for technological limitations, stating that “in case Defendant No. 45 has any technological limitations or reservations regarding this direction, it may take instructions and file an affidavit to that effect.”

Regarding the receipt of subscriber information, the court noted that “the plaintiff has now received the BSI details in compliance with the interim order dated 30.05.2025, and Defendant No. 45 has undertaken to provide the BSI details for the additional URLs within two (2) weeks.”

The court granted relief to compliant defendants, stating that “in view of the aforesaid submissions, Defendant Nos. 43, 44, 46, and 47 are exempted from further appearance.”

The matter has been listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for service and completion of pleadings on 13.01.2026, and before the Court for case management hearing on 25.02.2026.

Mr. Sai Krishna Rajagopal, Ms. Disha Sharma, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Mr. Angad Makkar, and Mr. Pushpit Ghosh appeared as counsel for the plaintiffs. Mr. Ankit Parhar, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, and Mr. S. Sethi appeared for Defendant No. 43; Ms. Amee Rana, Mr. Vishesh Sharma, and Ms. Prasidhi Agrawal appeared for Defendant No. 44; Ms. Mamta R. Jha, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Shruttima Ehersa, Mr. Rahul Choudhary, and Ms. Himani Sachdeva appeared for Defendant No. 45; and Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra, Ms. Mrinmayee Sahu, and Mr. Tribhuvan appeared for Defendant Nos. 46 and 47.

Case Title: Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev & Anr. vs. Igor Isakov & Ors.

[Read Order]