Introduction:

The Bombay High Court has granted ad-interim protection to the personality, publicity and moral rights of Sukhvinder Kaur, popularly known as Radhe Maa, directing Google and other concerned authorities to take down objectionable online content that allegedly misused her identity and caused harm to her dignity and reputation.

The order was passed on Tuesday, November 3, by a single-judge Bench of Justice Madhav Jamdar. The Court found that the material placed before it disclosed a prima facie violation of Radhe Maa’s personality and publicity rights, particularly where her face and voice were allegedly superimposed on the body of another woman to create misleading and objectionable content.

The proceedings arose from a plea filed by Radhe Maa seeking protection against the unauthorised use and misuse of her identity on internet platforms. The petition raised concerns about content that was allegedly obscene, sexually explicit, defamatory and derogatory, and which purportedly portrayed her in a manner damaging to her public image. The petitioner sought judicial intervention to prevent the continued circulation of such material and protect her dignity, privacy and reputation.

Radhe Maa, whose legal name is Sukhvinder Kaur, is a spiritual figure who has followers across India and abroad. In the order, Justice Jamdar noted that she has been a follower of Shri Mahanta Ramdeen Das 1008 for more than three decades and has developed a considerable number of devotees over the years.

Her public identity is associated with a recognisable appearance, including red attire, a trishul in her hand and a red tilak on her forehead. Her counsel, senior advocate Venkatesh Dhond, relied on these distinctive features to explain how her identity and public persona could be recognised and exploited through unauthorised online content.

The petitioner’s grievance was not confined to the unauthorised publication of ordinary photographs or references to her name. It also concerned content allegedly created by digitally combining her face and voice with another woman’s body. Such material, according to the petitioner, falsely represented her and exposed her to obscene and sexually explicit portrayals that had no connection with her actual conduct or public activities.

The case therefore raised important questions concerning the protection of personality rights in the digital environment. Personality rights broadly concern an individual’s ability to control the commercial or other unauthorised exploitation of distinctive aspects of their identity, including their name, image, voice and likeness. Publicity rights are closely connected with the ability to prevent unauthorised exploitation of one’s persona, particularly where identity is used to attract attention or derive commercial benefit. Moral rights, in the context of the petitioner’s case, concerned the alleged distortion and misuse of her identity in a manner prejudicial to her dignity and reputation.

The dispute also brought into focus the relationship between personality rights and constitutional freedoms. While Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression, the petitioner relied on the constitutional protection of privacy and life with dignity to contend that such freedom cannot be used to justify the unauthorised creation and circulation of misleading, obscene or defamatory material.

After examining the material placed before it, the Bombay High Court found a prima facie case for granting interim protection. It consequently directed Google and the other respondents, including the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, to ensure the removal of the objectionable content identified by the petitioner.

Arguments of the Parties:

Appearing for Radhe Maa, senior advocate Venkatesh Dhond submitted that several URLs hosted on the internet contained objectionable material that violated her personality, publicity and moral rights. He placed before the Court a list of infringing URLs and contended that the material was not merely unauthorised but also obscene, sexually explicit, defamatory and derogatory.

The petitioner’s principal submission was that the content falsely depicted her in a manner that was deeply damaging to her dignity and reputation as a recognised spiritual leader. According to the submission, the material created an entirely misleading impression about her by associating her identity with images and portrayals that had no factual basis.

Particular emphasis was placed on the alleged use of digital manipulation to superimpose Radhe Maa’s face and voice onto the body of another woman. The petitioner argued that this form of misuse was especially harmful because it made the resulting content appear to depict her, even though the underlying image or video did not actually feature her in the manner represented.

The submission highlighted that the misuse of a person’s identity need not be limited to the unauthorised publication of an authentic photograph. Digital technology can reproduce or manipulate distinctive features, including facial appearance and voice, to create material that falsely appears to involve the person concerned. Such content may cause substantial reputational injury, particularly when it is circulated widely through internet platforms.

Dhond also relied on Radhe Maa’s distinctive public appearance to establish that her identity was recognisable. He pointed out that she was commonly seen wearing red attire, holding a trishul and displaying a red tilak on her forehead. These features, taken together with her face and voice, formed identifiable elements of her public persona.

The petitioner contended that these distinctive attributes could not be freely appropriated and used to create misleading or objectionable content. The unauthorised use of her identity, particularly in sexually explicit or defamatory material, was alleged to violate her right to control the use of her persona and to protect her reputation.

The petitioner’s counsel further invoked Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, arguing that personality and publicity rights receive constitutional protection in the context of the freedom of speech and expression. The submission also referred to the right to privacy and the right to life under Article 21, emphasising that an individual’s dignity cannot be disregarded through the circulation of objectionable digital content.

The argument was that freedom of expression cannot be treated as an unrestricted licence to falsely portray another person or exploit their identity in a manner that damages their reputation. The petitioner did not merely object to criticism or discussion concerning her public activities; her grievance was directed at content allegedly fabricated through the misuse of her image and voice and circulated in obscene and defamatory forms.

Dhond therefore submitted that the material demonstrated a serious infringement of Radhe Maa’s personality, publicity and moral rights. Given the nature of the content and the potential harm caused by its continued circulation, he urged the Court to grant immediate interim relief and direct the concerned platforms and authorities to remove the identified URLs.

The respondents named in the proceedings included Google, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India. The relief sought required these entities to take steps to ensure that the objectionable material flagged by the petitioner was removed from the internet.

The available case summary does not provide the detailed submissions, if any, advanced by Google or the other respondents in response to the petition. It also does not record a specific defence based on freedom of expression or any other ground. Accordingly, the dispute, as reflected in the available material, principally concerns the petitioner’s allegations and the Court’s prima facie assessment of the content placed before it.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Madhav Jamdar found that the material placed on record disclosed a prima facie case of infringement of Radhe Maa’s personality, publicity and moral rights. The Court considered the nature of the alleged content, the manner in which her identity had been used and the harm that could result from its continued availability on the internet.

An important aspect of the Court’s reasoning was its recognition that Radhe Maa had developed a distinct public identity over several decades. The Court noted that she had been a follower of Shri Mahanta Ramdeen Das 1008 for more than thirty years and had a considerable number of devotees in India and abroad.

This observation was relevant to the petitioner’s claim that her identity was recognisable and that its unauthorised use could cause substantial injury. Personality rights are concerned with the protection of identifiable aspects of an individual’s persona. A person’s face, voice, name, image and other distinctive characteristics may collectively form the basis of public recognition.

In the present case, the petitioner’s counsel had specifically drawn attention to Radhe Maa’s usual appearance in red attire, with a trishul in her hand and a red tilak on her forehead. The Court considered the material in the context of these identifiable characteristics and the alleged use of her face and voice in objectionable content.

The Court’s observations indicate that personality rights are not confined to situations where a person’s name is expressly used or an authentic photograph is published without permission. The unauthorised manipulation of identifiable features may also raise concerns where it falsely associates an individual with conduct or representations that are not theirs.

This issue assumes particular significance in the digital environment, where photographs, videos and audio recordings can be altered and combined to create misleading representations. When a person’s face or voice is placed into a different visual setting, the resulting content may give viewers the false impression that the person participated in or endorsed the depicted activity.

The petitioner’s complaint specifically involved content allegedly created by superimposing her face and voice onto another woman’s body. The Court considered this material significant while assessing whether her personality and moral rights had been prejudiced.

In its order, the Court observed:

“Perusal of the material on record clearly shows that her personality rights, moral rights and publicity rights are violated by the said content. Including content created by superimposing her face and using her voice on another woman’s body…”

The observation demonstrates that the Court considered the alleged digital manipulation of the petitioner’s identity as an important factor in granting interim protection. The concern was not simply that her image had appeared online, but that her identity had allegedly been appropriated to create content that falsely represented her.

The Court also considered the constitutional dimensions of the petitioner’s claim. Justice Jamdar referred to Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which protects freedom of speech and expression, in the context of the protection available to an individual’s personality and publicity rights. The Court also recognised the relevance of the right to privacy and the right to life, particularly the right to live with dignity.

The relationship between freedom of expression and personality rights requires a careful approach. Article 19(1)(a) is a fundamental constitutional guarantee, and public figures and spiritual leaders remain subject to public discussion, criticism and scrutiny. However, the existence of a public profile does not mean that every use of an individual’s identity is automatically permissible.

There is a distinction between legitimate expression concerning a public figure and the unauthorised creation of material that falsely depicts that person. The petitioner’s case concerned alleged obscene, sexually explicit and defamatory portrayals, including manipulated content using her face and voice. The Court found that the material, on a prima facie assessment, went beyond an ordinary use of her public identity and prejudiced the rights asserted by her.

The Court’s reference to privacy and dignity was equally significant. Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, and the constitutional understanding of life includes the ability to live with dignity. The right to privacy is also recognised as an important aspect of personal liberty. A person’s identity cannot be treated as an unrestricted resource for others to manipulate, particularly where the alleged use exposes that person to false and degrading representations.

Justice Jamdar observed that Radhe Maa’s right to live with dignity had been breached and that her moral rights were also prejudiced. The Court consequently found that the petitioner had established a strong case for ad-interim relief.

The relevant observation stated:

“Her right to privacy and right to life too protected…. Her right to live with dignity has been breached…. Her moral rights too are prejudiced…. Thus, a strong case made for ad-interim relief as prayed.”

The expression ad-interim relief is important in understanding the procedural nature of the order. The Court granted immediate protection at an interim stage after examining the material placed before it. Such relief is intended to prevent or limit continuing harm while the proceedings remain pending. It should not be confused with a final adjudication of every issue raised in the suit.

The Court’s finding was therefore a prima facie assessment supporting urgent protection. It recognised that continued online availability of the identified content could cause further injury to the petitioner’s dignity and reputation. In circumstances involving digital material, the speed and reach of online circulation may make interim intervention particularly important. Once objectionable content is uploaded, it may be copied, shared and reproduced across different platforms, making the harm difficult to contain.

Having found a strong case for interim relief, the Court directed Google and the other respondents to ensure that the objectionable content flagged by Radhe Maa was removed from the internet. The directions extended to the respondents named in the proceedings, including the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India.

The order thus placed responsibility on the concerned respondents to take steps to remove the identified material. The relief was directed at the objectionable content brought to the Court’s attention by the petitioner, rather than constituting a general prohibition on all online discussion or publication concerning her.

This distinction is important because protection of personality rights must operate alongside the constitutional guarantee of free speech. A direction to remove specific material found prima facie objectionable is different from imposing a blanket restriction on lawful criticism, reporting or discussion. The Court’s order, as described in the available case summary, concerns the URLs and content specifically flagged by Radhe Maa.

The decision also reflects the growing importance of legal protection against the misuse of personal identity through digital manipulation. The ability to reproduce or alter a person’s face and voice raises serious questions about consent, authenticity, reputation and accountability. Such concerns become particularly acute when manipulated material is presented in a way that falsely attributes conduct to an identifiable individual.

The case demonstrates that the law may be required to address forms of identity misuse that extend beyond conventional defamation or unauthorised publication. Where digital content allegedly combines a person’s identifiable features with fabricated or objectionable portrayals, claims concerning privacy, dignity, personality rights and publicity rights may arise together.

At the same time, the precise scope of the rights asserted and the ultimate legal consequences will depend on the facts and the issues considered in the proceedings. The present order should be understood in the context of the interim relief granted on the material placed before the Court, rather than as a final determination of every legal question relating to personality rights on the internet.

Ultimately, Justice Madhav Jamdar held that the material disclosed a prima facie violation of Radhe Maa’s personality, publicity and moral rights. Finding that her dignity, privacy and reputation had been prejudiced, the Bombay High Court granted ad-interim protection and directed Google, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications to ensure the removal of the objectionable content identified by her.

The order reinforces the principle that an individual’s public identity does not become freely available for unauthorised digital manipulation. While freedom of expression remains constitutionally protected, it must be considered alongside the rights to privacy, reputation and dignity. The Court’s intervention highlights the importance of protecting individuals against fabricated online portrayals that misuse their face, voice and other distinctive attributes.