Introduction
In the rapidly evolving landscape of digital content consumption, the proliferation of online platforms, peer-to-peer file sharing, and increased anonymity on the internet have posed significant challenges to the enforcement of legal rights—particularly in the domain of intellectual property (“IP”). To counter these threats, John Doe orders have come as a relief. These orders are a result of judicial innovation that allows legal redress against the unidentified and unnamed defendants.
While India has adopted and adapted this tool with remarkable enthusiasm, especially in cases involving copyright infringement and media piracy, the jurisprudence remains inconsistent, largely uncodified, and often procedurally opaque. John Doe orders, also known in India as Ashok Kumar orders, have become a mainstay in protecting pre-release films, live sporting broadcasts, and exclusive digital content. In fact, with time, these orders have also been passed to protect the personality rights of various individuals, which is the focal point of this piece. However, the application of these orders is not without controversy. These orders are passed as a last resort available to the plaintiff in order to save his rights.
While John Doe Orders are a powerful tool for IP protection, they must be balanced against personality rights. Personality rights, also known as personal rights or rights of publicity, refer to the rights of an individual to control the commercial use of his or her name, image, likeness, or other aspects of personal identity. The tension between John Doe Orders and personality rights arises when the former is used to restrict the latter. For example, a celebrity might obtain a John Doe Order to prevent unknown persons from using their image without consent. However, this could also be perceived as a restriction on the freedom of speech and expression, particularly in cases involving parody, satire, or criticism. Therefore, the challenge for courts is to strike a balance between protecting IP rights through John Doe Orders and safeguarding personality rights. This requires a nuanced understanding of both legal concepts and a careful consideration of the specific circumstances of each case. Moreover, another major challenge with respect to John Doe Orders is the enforcement and compliance with these orders.
In view thereof, this piece critically examines the evolution of John Doe orders within Indian jurisprudence, identifies the challenges inherent in their current form, and proposes a path toward greater legal certainty and procedural safeguards, focusing on Personality Rights in particular.
Concept behind John Doe Orders
The term ‘John Doe’ refers to an unknown person or entity. In the context of legal proceedings, a John Doe Order is an injunction sought by a plaintiff against an unidentified defendant. It is usually ordered in form of interim injunction with an objective to protect the rights of the plaintiff and to restrain the wrongful acts of an unknown defendant. This type of order is particularly useful in cases where the identity of the infringer is unknown or difficult to ascertain. Such orders are typically sought when the identity of the infringer is unknown at the time of filing the suit, but the infringement or potential harm is imminent and clearly demonstrable.
The concept of John Doe Orders has been met with both praise and criticism. Recently, these orders have been instrumental in providing relief against Copyright infringement, Trademark infringement, Online harassment, Data theft and Broadcast Piracy. However, these orders have been subject to criticism also. It has been argued that John Doe Orders can be misused and may infringe upon the rights of innocent third parties. They point out that these orders are often broad and vague and can be also used to target legitimate users and service providers. Critics also express concern about the lack of due process and the potential for abuse of power.
As the digital landscape continues to evolve, it is likely that the concept of John Doe Orders will continue to be refined and adapted to meet the changing needs of rights holders and the challenges posed by new technologies. The need for these orders arises when there is rampant infringement or unlawful exploitation such that it is practically impossible for a rights owner to identify all infringing parties. The legal rationale behind these orders is to prevent irreparable injury before the infringer can be identified and brought before the court. Since it an injunction order, the essential ingredients must be proved by the plaintiff:
Evolution in Indian Jurisprudence
In the Indian jurisprudence, John Doe orders have been rechristened as Ashok Kumar orders, referencing a case where the order was applied to stop unauthorized distribution of a movie featuring actor Ashok Kumar. The concept of John Doe orders found formal recognition in Indian jurisprudence with the landmark decision in the case of Taj Television v. Rajan Mandal & Ors., decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. In this case, the court granted a restraining order against unidentified cable operators illegally airing FIFA World Cup matches, marking the first time Indian courts issued an injunction against unknown parties. This case laid the foundation for what would become a widely accepted legal mechanism in the entertainment industry. The decision was premised on the powers of the courts derived under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”). Accordingly, the statutory basis for John Doe Orders is now derived from the following provisions:
- Section 151 CPC; which grants inherent powers to courts to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process.
- Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; which allow for temporary injunctions in cases where the plaintiff shows prima facie evidence of infringement and the balance of convenience lies in its favour.
Personality Rights: Scope and Dimensions
Personality rights represent an evolving domain of legal protection that sits at the intersection of privacy, identity, and commercial control. These rights aim to safeguard the individual’s authority over the commercial and representational use of their identity elements—such as name, image, voice, likeness, signature, and other personal attributes. As public life becomes increasingly digitized and personal data is routinely monetized, the relevance of personality rights has grown exponentially, especially in the context of anonymous and often cross-jurisdictional infringement, where John Doe orders may become a crucial mechanism for enforcement.
Historically, personality rights have evolved from the broader principles of privacy and defamation. In many common law countries, courts initially protected personality rights through claims of defamation and passing off, modern legal regimes recognize personality rights as an independent category of rights, albeit with varying contours across jurisdictions. In India, the right to privacy has been recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of the India via the judgment in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India. Though the decision primarily focused right to privacy, it laid emphasis on data privacy in cyberspace and thereby became a foundation for asserting personality rights.
Further, the jurisprudence surrounding defamation; both civil and criminal, have also played a contributory role in shaping personality rights. For instance, publishing false information about a public figure that harms their reputation might amount to defamation; however, even truthful representations, if unauthorized and commercially exploitative, could infringe the right of publicity. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court laid a precedent in this regard in the case of Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors. wherein the plaintiff sought relief against violation of his ‘publicity rights as celebrity’. Accordingly, the court while granting an ex-parte injunction order in favour of the plaintiff observed as follows:
“It cannot seriously be disputed that the plaintiff is a well- known personality and is also represented in various advertisements.”
At this juncture, it is pertinent to highlight another critical decision regarding personality rights of the same personality. The decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Titan Industries Ltd. v. M/s Ramkumar Jewellers is a precedent wherein the court ruled in favour of Titan and its brand ambassadors (Amitabh Bachchan and Jaya Bachchan) against the unauthorized use of their image by a jeweller. The court also noted:
“When the identity of a famous personality is used in advertising without their permission, the complaint is not that no one should commercialize their identity but that the right to control when, where, and how their identity is used should vest with the person concerned.”
Prior to the abovementioned case, there was a case of ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court acknowledged the right of publicity and held that it vests in an individual and can be licensed. The court emphasized that unauthorized use of a celebrity’s image or name for commercial gain violates that individual’s right to control the commercial exploitation of their identity. Therefore, in the absence of a statutory framework, Indian courts have relied on a combination of Article 21, tort law principles, and intellectual property rights to enforce personality rights. India does not have a codified law specifically addressing personality rights.
Intersection: John Doe Orders and Protection of Personality Rights
Famous personalities, by virtue of their profession or public role, place aspects of their identity in the public domain. This reality often leads to a higher threshold for enforcement and a closer scrutiny of claims that potentially infringe upon freedom of expression or journalistic freedom. This has examined in the case of DM Entertainment v. Baby Gift House by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court prohibited the unapproved use of his name and likeness for merchandise even if the creators of those merchandise design own the copyright. Therefore, the unauthorized commercial exploitation of a celebrity’s image, even if they are a public figure, can amount to infringement of their personality rights. By allowing immediate injunctive relief without waiting for the defendant’s identity to be ascertained, John Doe orders ensure timely protection of the aggrieved person’s reputation, dignity, and control over their public persona. This is especially vital when delay could lead to irreparable harm, such as viral dissemination of a deepfake video or mass reproduction of unauthorized images. The purpose of such content, usually, is to mislead the general public and bait them into the consumption of various goods and services in the name of celebrities. Some of these instances are discussed hereinbelow.
One of the most frequent instances of personality rights infringement is the unauthorized use of celebrity images for endorsements or promotions. Misappropriating a public figure’s likeness can mislead consumers, damage the celebrity’s brand value, and deprive them of rightful commercial remuneration. In these kinds of cases, John Doe orders allow courts to issue blanket injunctions against all persons and entities using the image or likeness of the celebrity without consent, especially when the actual identity of the violators is unclear. This approach has been particularly useful in the lead-up to major events like movie releases or elections, where multiple infringing actors may emerge rapidly and independently. For example, during the release of the movie ‘great grand masti’, the Bombay High Court allowed implementation of the John Doe order against the Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”).
Deepfakes and AI-Generated Impersonations
The most dangerous and evolving frontier for personality rights is AI-generated content, including deepfakes, in which a person’s likeness is synthetically superimposed to simulate their presence or behaviour. Such deepfakes may depict a celebrity or individual in compromising, defamatory, or misleading contexts, and are frequently circulated by anonymous social media users or hosted on short-lived domains. The pseudonymous nature of the internet makes it challenging to pursue conventional legal action. John Doe orders, however, provide a provisional shield—restraining the platform or service provider from hosting or distributing the content —as in Ankur Warikoo v. John Doe.
Another instance of the same is the case of Global Health Limited & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors. wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court passed a John Doe order to take down all the fake content generated with the use of AI and other deepfake videos and impersonations of Dr. Naresh Trehan. Such orders are vital to pre-empt and cure viral harm, especially where the content spreads faster than enforcement mechanisms can react. With deepfake tools becoming increasingly accessible, the courts are witnessing the growing number of applications seeking John Doe orders to preserve the sanctity of individual identity.
Online Harassment and Identity Misuse
There is criminal liability in cases of online harassment and identity misuse. Parallelly, John Doe orders have become a sought-after remedy on the civil side as well, especially when it comes to identity misuse and consequent harassment of the users particularly where fake profiles are created using someone’s name and photograph, or where anonymous users circulate doctored images, videos, or defamatory material. This has been particularly challenging for performers, as witnessed in the case of Arijit Singh v. AI Platforms wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court granted an injunction against the platforms using the plaintiff’s vocal identity illegally, thereby restraining digital replication of his work.
[continued in next part]
(This post has been co-authored by Tanya Tikiya and Advik Rijul Jha.
Tanya Tikiya is an Advocate based in Delhi and an independent practitioner appearing before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, and other courts. Advik Rijul Jha is a commercial disputes lawyer/advocate currently based in New Delhi. He is also a senior editor at TCLF.)
CITE AS: Tanya Tikiya and Advik Rijul Jha, ‘John Doe Orders: An Instrument for the Protection of Personality Rights– Part I’ (The Contemporary Law Forum, 27 December 2025) <https://tclf.in/2025/12/27/john-doe-orders-an-instrument-for-the-protection-of-personality-rights-part-i/>date of access.