Legal and Procedural Concerns

In light of the discussion in Part I, John Doe orders raise significant legal and procedural concerns, which can be described as follows:

Lack of Statutory Backing

One of the foremost issues is that John Doe orders are a result of judicial innovation springing from Section 151 and Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. It lacks a specific statutory backing that explicitly provides for this injunctive remedy.

A central criticism of John Doe orders in the realm of personality rights is their potential to infringe on freedom of speech and expression. In many instances, petitioners seek to restrain any use of their name, image, or likeness by unidentified individuals. While this is legitimate when the use is exploitative, malicious, or commercially misleading, there is a thin line separating unlawful misappropriation from lawful expression, such as parody and satire, news reporting, critical commentary, and biographical references. However, this is not considered by the court; rather, the court is inclined to grant an ad-interim ex parte injunction order.

If courts grant wide-ranging John Doe orders without distinguishing between commercial misuse and expressive use, there is a risk of over-blocking. Platforms, fearing contempt or legal liability, may choose to remove lawful content as a precaution. This produces a chilling effect on speech, where users are discouraged from expressing opinions about public figures, including legitimate criticism. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in cases such as Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), has underscored the significance of protecting free speech under Article 19(1)(a). Any restriction, even for protecting personality rights, must therefore be reasonable, proportional, and necessary.

Due Process and Natural Justice

John Doe orders are largely issued ex parte, since the defendant is unknown. While this is justified by the urgency and anonymity involved, it risks violating the principle of natural justice that is audi alteram partem, especially when third-party intermediaries like ISPs, content hosts, and cable operators are affected. Further, there is no immediate scrutiny or challenge to the factual claims made by the petitioner, and these parties are often expected to comply without a formal opportunity to contest the allegations or seek modification of the order. The Courts have tried to mitigate this by requiring periodic review or follow-up hearings, but these procedural safeguards, like passing a direction to comply with Order XXXIX, Rule 3 of CPC and comply with Order XXXIX, Rule 3A of CPC. Even in matters where speech rights are implicated, ex parte injunctions are not usually narrowly tailored, with a clearly defined scope and a mechanism for affected parties to seek modification or clarification.

Enforcement Ambiguity

In many cases, plaintiffs are given wide-ranging enforcement powers, including the authority to seize content, block websites, or demand action from ISPs.

Infringers post content (such as deepfakes or fake endorsements) and disappear before legal action can catch up. Although John Doe orders empower the court to restrain unknown persons, enforcing the order against someone whose identity is truly untraceable becomes difficult. Moreover, ephemeral content, such as disappearing stories or private chat forwards, escapes detection unless the victim captures it in time. The damage is done till the time any relief is granted.

Without clear guidelines, enforcement can become overbroad or arbitrary, potentially infringing on the rights of innocent parties. In Reliance Big Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Jyoti Cable Network (popularly known as the Singham case), after obtaining the order, the plaintiff sent a list of file-sharing sites to ISPs, asking them to stop them from pirating the movie. The ISPs, unable to prevent piracy, blocked entire file-sharing websites. Consequently, many users who use these sites for legitimate purposes were unable to access the sites. Additionally, there is often no clear timeframe for review, appeal, or withdrawal of these orders once the defendant is identified. India is yet to witness a case where the defendant has been identified or the John Doe order is appealed against. If it is to be seen from a perspective of an infringing party, making a rogue website which is non-traceable would be an easier option rather than approaching the court seeking cancellation to the infringement order (John Doe order) under Order XXXIX, Rule 4 of the CPC.

Intermediary Liability

Intermediaries such as telecom companies, website owners, and domain registrars are often made co-defendants or are bound by the order. However, their rights and obligations under Indian law—especially under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (which provides “safe harbour” protections)—are not always taken into account during the issuance of John Doe orders. Section 79 grants conditional immunity to intermediaries for third-party content hosted or transmitted on their platforms. The essential requirements for claiming this protection are:

1. The intermediary must act as a mere conduit and not initiate or modify the transmission.
2. The intermediary must exercise due diligence and comply with the Intermediary Guidelines Rules, 2021.
3. Upon receiving actual knowledge of unlawful activity (via court order or government notice), the intermediary must expeditiously remove or disable access to that content.

Notably, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has directed Google LLC, which is an intermediary as per the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“Intermediary Guidelines”) to make a collaborative effort to identify and takedown the content that infringes personality rights of the renowned spiritual leader Sadhguru. This has come in light after the court considered Rule 4 (4) of the Intermediary Guidelines.

Such orders have a ray of hope to streamline to protection of personality rights and the intermediary liability in such protection.

Balancing Freedom of Expression and Personality Rights

Another core challenge in enforcing personality rights through John Doe orders is the potential conflict with freedom of speech and expression, particularly in cases where content involves commentary, parody, criticism, or news. For public figures—especially politicians, actors, and influencers—there is a public interest component in their lives. Satirical depictions, news coverage, or even critical commentary may involve the use of their name, voice, or likeness. The line between legitimate expression and infringing exploitation can often be blurred.

There needs to be a balance between the rights of an infringing party and the right has been infringed. The courts are wary of the balance of convenience as held in the case of Tata Sons v. Greenpeace International (2011), wherein the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that parody and social commentary, even if critical or satirical, are protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950. Thus, courts issuing John Doe orders must carefully distinguish between the Commercial exploitation (e.g., fake endorsements, AI-generated ads), which violates personality rights, and non-commercial expression (e.g., memes, satire, political speech), which is protected. Without such a distinction, John Doe orders might become instruments of censorship, rather than protection.

Lack of Uniform Standards and Judicial Inconsistency

The Indian legal system currently lacks codified guidelines on the issuance, scope, and enforcement of John Doe orders in the context of personality rights. Most orders are based on judicial discretion, which varies across benches and jurisdictions. Some courts grant extremely broad relief, covering any future use of a celebrity’s name or image, while others restrict the order to specific platforms or types of misuse. This inconsistency leads to:

• Uncertainty for platforms in implementing takedowns,
• Ambiguity for content creators on what is permissible,
• Strategic misuse of John Doe orders by some litigants to suppress dissent or criticism.

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Eros International v. BSNL, instructed that blocking of the whole website is not allowed, unless it can be proved that the whole website contains only pirated or illicit content. However, this judgement cannot be made binding upon all the cases through out India, thereby having a limited application.

Absence of Posthumous Personality Rights Framework

Another concern is the unclear legal status of personality rights after death. In several recent Indian cases, relatives or legal representatives of deceased celebrities have sought John Doe orders to prevent films, web series, or online tributes that allegedly violate the “dignity” of the departed person.

For instance, in Krishna Kishore Singh v. Netflix & Ors., the father of late actor Sushant Singh Rajput challenged a film inspired by the actor’s life, arguing it infringed posthumous personality rights. However, no relief has been granted to that effect. Therefore, it needs to be determined whether the personality of the deceased celebrity, in particular, is covered within its ambit.

Recommendations and the Way Forward

To bring clarity, fairness, and consistency to the use of John Doe orders, the following reforms are proposed:

Legislative Recognition

A statutory framework should be introduced to formally recognize John Doe orders. This could be included as a specific provision within the CPC, the Copyright Act, 1957, the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Information Technology Act, 2000, or the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The law should lay down the framework for:

• The types of cases where John Doe orders are appropriate.
• The evidentiary threshold for issuance.
• Rights of third-party intermediaries involved.
• Conditions for enforcement, review, and withdrawal.

Judicial Guidelines

Till the time there are any legislative actions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court may lay down cautionary guidelines to navigate through such John Doe orders for personality rights. These guidelines may provide clarity on:

• The limits of enforcement powers granted.
• Notice requirements to unknown and third-party defendants.
• Time limits and mandatory hearings post-issuance.
• Initiate contempt against the parties who are identified defendants if they do not comply with the injunction order

Review and Redress Mechanisms

There should be a mandatory judicial review of every John Doe order within a fixed timeframe (e.g., 15–30 days), with a hearing of all affected parties. Defendants who are later identified should be allowed to contest the validity of the original order.

Training and Capacity Building

Judges, especially at the trial court level, need training in digital rights enforcement and comparative jurisprudence. A bench-book or model practices document on John Doe orders would help ensure consistent application.

John Doe orders represent a critical innovation in modern legal practice, enabling timely and effective redress against anonymous infringers, especially in the digital age. Their importance in protecting intellectual property rights, reputational interests, and digital privacy cannot be overstated. However, their utility must be matched by judicial restraint, procedural fairness, and legal clarity. It has to be seen how courts will take it forward, especially considering that right to access the internet and the right to digital access have formed a part of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The time is ripe for codification of personality rights in Indian law, including the scope, nature, and enforceability of such rights—both during a person’s lifetime and posthumously. Statutory backing would bring uniformity and consistency to judicial approaches and curb the risk of misuse. Such a framework must balance the right to dignity with the equally important right to expression in a constitutional democracy.

(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 II’ (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-ii/>date of access.