“While hearing this suit, this court realizes that claim of personality rights sought to be enforced by Alakh Pandey in his suit may be over broad and this court must ensure that such suits are not used to silence legitimate criticism or to get orders passed taking down legally permissible forms of expression,” Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said.

“In view of an earlier decision of a Coordinate Bench of this court in DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs. Baby Gift House and Others , this court would want to examine and ensure that personality rights are not deployed to prevent dissemination of information in relation to wrongdoing; or to extinguish an entire genre of expression including caricature, lampooning or parody which may not amount to commercial exploitation of an individual’ personality or publicity rights,” Justice Bhambhani observed.

It directed Google, Telegram, X and Automatic Inc to provide basic subscriber information (BSI) of persons behind websites flagged by plaintiff containing objectionable material.

It also granted liberty to plaintiff to approach concerned intermediaries if it comes across any other infringing websites. Such intimations to intermediaries (along with copy to ISPs or DNR as the case may be) would require these entities to technically verify if the claims made by plaintiff are correct.

“It is clarified that the role of ISPs and DNR is only limited to extent of technical verification of claim that website complained of is indeed rogue. In no way shall ISPs and/or DNR go into merit of the claim that the content hosted on such website infringes any rights of the plaintiff,” the Court said.

“The court is delegating its administrative functions to ISPs and DNR. In the present case, what the court is delegating is not the discretion for an ISP or a DNR to decide whether or not to block a website; but only the task of technically verifying if a given website, that is claimed by the plaintiff to be rogue, is indeed a mirror/ alphanumeric/ re- directed website of the defendant websites against whom an order of injunction has already been passed by this court.”, the order added.

“The concerned ISP and DNR, if satisfied that such websites are indeed rogue shall enforce the exparte ad-interim injunction granted in terms of this order against such websites.”, the Court added.

“The court does not discern any real risk that such direction may be misused by the plaintiff. This court is restraining the defendant online players only to the extent of taking down three specific categories of violations,” it added.

"Telegram stickers are being made from my face and being sold for commercial purposes. As an educator, it has the potential to bring me down in the eyes of the students. Innuendoes and insinuations are made. The content is commercial, unauthorised and downright obscene. There is heavy- duty sexually demeaning content that shows me in predatory light. Abusive language is used. We are not ultra sensitive to criticism. Some red lines people have to follow," he said.

Senior Advocate Deepak also highlighted several instances of impersonation of Pandey on a Telegram channel called ‘Alakh Sir lectures’ as well Facebook and Instagram accounts.

Deepak also played a parody and satirical video against Pandey. Court asked plaintiff to only play the section of the video which was defaming Pandey. After hearing both sides and watching the short clip where plaintiff's personality is allegedly targeted the Court refused to grant takedown order of this video stating that there cannot be any takedown.