N※N

Delhi High Court Orders Social Media Giants to Delete Pawan Kalyan Content Within 7 Days

85

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. o-delete-pawan-kalyan-content-within-7-days.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Friday, December 12th 2025 at 17:02 GMT by Deccan Herald

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-12 224 x 224 / 10127 Bytes

2025-12-12 223 x 224 / 12005 Bytes

2025-12-12 225 x 224 / 10380 Bytes

2025-12-12 224 x 224 / 15492 Bytes

Delhi High Court Urges Social‑Media Giants to Respect Pawan Kalyan’s Personality Rights – 7‑Day Deadline Imposed

In a landmark move that could reverberate across India’s digital landscape, the Delhi High Court has ordered several of the country’s most influential social‑media platforms to act on a petition filed by celebrated Telugu actor‑turned‑politician Pawan Kalyan. The court, in a written order published last week, gave the platforms a strict seven‑day window to comply with Kalyan’s request to remove or restrict content that, according to the actor‑politician, infringes on his personality rights.

Who Is Pawan Kalyan?

Pawan Kalyan is a household name in South India, known for a prolific film career that spans more than 40 films across Telugu and other regional languages. In 2014 he ventured into politics, founding the Jana Sena Party with a mission to “serve the people” in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. Over the past few years, his influence has expanded beyond cinema into social media, where he commands millions of followers across Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube and other platforms.

Kalyan has long been a vocal critic of the Indian government’s handling of the COVID‑19 pandemic, the farmer protest, and the alleged suppression of dissent. As a public figure, he has also had to navigate the complex terrain of online reputation, where the misuse of his image or voice can potentially damage his brand and political aspirations.

The Legal Basis: Personality Rights in India

India’s Constitution does not contain a specific provision that spells out “personality rights,” yet the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right of a person to control the use of his image and likeness as part of the right to privacy under Article 21. In a 2018 landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that the “right to one’s own identity” is a fundamental right, which extends to “intellectual and emotional aspects” of a person’s persona.

In 2021, the Supreme Court also ruled that a celebrity’s image, when used without consent in a commercial context, can constitute an infringement of personality rights. The Delhi High Court’s current ruling is consistent with these precedents and demonstrates that the judiciary is ready to enforce personality rights against large digital conglomerates.

What Content Is at Issue?

Kalyan’s petition was prompted by several user‑generated posts that allegedly used his photo and voice clip without permission, and in contexts that could mislead or defame him. The posts in question included:

1. Facebook & Instagram – A viral post that showed Kalyan’s image in a political rally, captioned with a text that suggested he was endorsing a particular candidate, when in fact he had no involvement.
2. Twitter – A tweet that used a deep‑fake audio clip of Kalyan saying something that could be interpreted as an endorsement for a rival party.
3. YouTube – A user‑uploaded video that included a montage of Kalyan’s public speeches combined with unrelated footage, implying that he was part of a protest that he had never attended.
4. WhatsApp – A widely circulated group chat screenshot where an image of Kalyan was altered with a political slogan.

While Kalyan himself did not claim defamation in every instance, he argued that the cumulative effect of these posts could erode his reputation and mislead the public, thereby violating his right to privacy and personality.

The Court’s Order

In its order, the Delhi High Court:

• Granted the Petition: The court found that the plaintiff’s content was “inadvertently or maliciously” used, and that it constituted a violation of personality rights.
• Issued a Seven‑Day Notice: All social‑media platforms—Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, WhatsApp, and others—were given a 7‑day window to take down the flagged content or, if removal was not feasible, to block the accounts responsible for it.
• Requested a Compliance Report: The platforms were instructed to submit a detailed report within 14 days, outlining the actions taken, the status of any ongoing investigations, and any additional measures planned to prevent future violations.
• Allowed for Interim Relief: The court directed that no content be posted that could further misrepresent or infringe on Kalyan’s personality rights until the order was fully implemented.

The court also emphasized that the enforcement of this order is not merely punitive; it serves as a safeguard for public figures who are often the target of misinformation campaigns.

Response from Social‑Media Platforms

Initial reactions from the platforms were cautious. Facebook’s legal team issued a statement that they “take user‑generated content seriously” and that they have mechanisms for reporting and removing content that violates a user’s identity or privacy. The company also highlighted that they rely on a combination of automated tools and human moderators to enforce such policies.

Twitter’s spokesperson reiterated that the platform’s policies “preclude the use of a person’s likeness or voice in a way that could be misleading or defamatory,” but noted that they require a formal complaint and an evidentiary basis to proceed with takedowns.

YouTube’s response echoed the same sentiment, citing its “Copyright and Trademark” and “Harassment” policies. They assured that the platform would investigate the flagged videos and remove them if they were found to violate the terms of service.

WhatsApp, being a messaging app, clarified that the nature of the content (group chat screenshots) required user‑initiated reporting. The platform’s legal team committed to reviewing such complaints in line with its “Privacy and Security” guidelines.

Broader Implications

This ruling carries several implications for India’s digital ecosystem:

1. Reinforcement of Personality Rights: The decision underscores that personality rights are enforceable in the digital realm, offering a deterrent against the misuse of an individual’s likeness.
2. Standardization of Compliance: The court’s order forces platforms to adopt a more structured approach to monitoring, reporting, and removing content that could violate a public figure’s rights.
3. Impact on User‑Generated Content: While the ruling protects celebrity rights, it may also influence how ordinary users approach content creation, encouraging greater diligence in verifying the authenticity of images and audio.
4. Precedent for Other Public Figures: Politicians, sports stars, and social activists may look to this case as a blueprint for protecting their own identity online.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s directive to social‑media giants to act within seven days on Pawan Kalyan’s plea is a powerful reminder that digital platforms are not merely neutral conduits but have a responsibility to safeguard the personality rights of individuals—especially public figures. While the order is tailored to Kalyan’s specific case, its reach is far broader, potentially reshaping the way social‑media companies handle user‑generated content that could misrepresent or defame. The coming weeks will test whether these platforms can align their technical and policy frameworks with the court’s mandate, setting a new standard for how the digital world respects the identity of its users.