Delhi High Court Orders Takedown of Kala Hiran Teaser in Salman Khan Personality Rights Case

The Delhi High Court has directed the removal of the teaser, promotional material, and related interviews for the upcoming film "Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy," ruling that the content prima facie infringes actor Salman Khan's personality rights. Justice Jyoti Singh, hearing the matter in C.S. (COMM) No. 1322 of 2025, gave the filmmakers a 24-hour deadline to remove the identified content, failing which platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) and YouTube would have to take it down within the next 24 hours.

The Dispute: What Is Kala Hiran About?

"Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy" is a film reportedly inspired by Salman Khan's 1998 blackbuck poaching case in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, which remains pending before higher courts. According to Salman Khan's plea, the promotional material contains unmistakable references to him, including the depiction of a lookalike wearing the actor's iconic blue bracelet, an accessory that has become uniquely associated with him. The film is also alleged to portray his purported rivalry with gangster Lawrence Bishnoi. The defendants include producer Amit Jani, Jani Firefox Films, director Bharat Shrinate, and casting director Akshay Pandey. Salman Khan is represented by DSK Legal.

What Are Personality Rights Under Indian Law?

Personality rights, also known as publicity rights, protect a person's name, image, likeness, and other identifiable attributes from unauthorised commercial exploitation. While India does not have a specific statute on personality rights, courts have recognised them as flowing from Article 21 (right to life and dignity) and the common law right to privacy. The Delhi High Court has, in several recent decisions, recognised that celebrities possess enforceable personality rights that prevent third parties from commercially exploiting their identity without consent. This includes the landmark Preity Zinta personality rights case against deepfakes and the Raghav Chadha deepfake personality rights ruling.

The Court's Observations

Justice Jyoti Singh reprimanded the film's producer, Amit Jani, and told his counsel that Jani seemed to be drawing confidence from the fact that no order had been passed at the previous hearing. The Court observed that "reputation, once lost, is lost" and that "every minute that this is in the public domain, it is harming the reputation of the plaintiff." The Court also took note of the fact that the promotional material was being amplified through interviews given by the producer on various platforms, which further compounded the injury to the plaintiff's rights.

The Lookalike and Blue Bracelet: Why They Matter

A key element in the case is the use of a lookalike wearing a blue bracelet in the teaser. Personality rights jurisprudence extends beyond the use of a person's actual name or photograph. It covers any element that is so closely associated with a public figure that its use creates an unmistakable connection in the public mind. The blue bracelet, which Salman Khan has worn as a signature accessory for years, falls precisely into this category. By using a lookalike wearing this distinctive accessory, the filmmakers effectively invoked Khan's persona without using his name, which the Court found to be a violation of his personality rights.

Personality Rights vs. Artistic Freedom: The Balancing Act

The case raises an important tension between personality rights and the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. While filmmakers have the right to create artistic works, including those based on real events, that right does not extend to the unauthorised commercial exploitation of a living person's identity, name, or likeness. Indian courts have generally held that where a film is not a bona fide exercise in biographical storytelling or journalistic reporting, but rather a commercial venture that trades on a celebrity's identity, the balance tips in favour of protecting personality rights. The evolving framework for protecting individuals against deepfakes under the IT Rules further strengthens this protection in the digital age.

Platform Liability and Takedown Obligations

The order imposes a two-tiered takedown obligation. First, the filmmakers themselves must remove the content within 24 hours. If they fail to comply, X and YouTube are then required to take down the material within the next 24 hours. This structure reflects the growing trend of Indian courts holding social media platforms accountable for content moderation, particularly where court orders are in play. Platforms that fail to comply risk contempt proceedings.

Key Takeaways

1. Justice Jyoti Singh of the Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of the Kala Hiran teaser and related promotional content within 24 hours, with platform takedown obligations activating if the filmmakers fail to comply.

2. The ruling reinforces that personality rights in India extend to distinctive attributes associated with a public figure, such as Salman Khan's signature blue bracelet, not just their name or photograph.

3. The use of a lookalike in promotional material to invoke a celebrity's persona can constitute a violation of personality rights, even without using the celebrity's actual name.

4. The Court drew a clear line between bona fide artistic expression and commercial exploitation of a celebrity's identity; where a film trades on a living person's identity for commercial gain, personality rights take precedence over free speech.

5. The case is part of a growing body of Indian jurisprudence recognising personality and publicity rights, alongside recent rulings on copyright registration and trademark disputes.

6. Filmmakers and content creators should obtain written consent before using any identifiable attribute of a living person in commercial productions, or risk injunctions and damages claims.