Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act

Source: Delhi High Court     

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Tejas Karia issued an interim order protecting Telugu actor Nagarjuna Akkineni’s personality rights, restraining misuse of his name, image, or voice, including via AI and deepfakes. The Court also directed websites and authorities to block the offending URLs to prevent harm to his reputation and economic interests. 

• The Delhi High Court  held this in the matter of Akkineni Nagarjuna v. X & Ors (2025). 

What was the Background of Akkineni Nagarjuna v. X & Ors (2025)? 

• Akkineni Nagarjuna, the Plaintiff, is a 65-year-old Indian citizen residing in Hyderabad, Telangana, and stands as one of the most respected and celebrated actors in Indian cinema. With a career spanning over four decades and featuring in more than 95 feature films, he has established himself as a revered veteran of South Indian cinema. His sustained excellence and versatile acting skills have earned him numerous accolades, making him one of the most decorated actors in the industry. The Plaintiff's substantial goodwill and reputation are evidenced by his 6.3 million followers on social media platform X, demonstrating widespread public recognition and admiration. 
• As a person of celebrity status, the Plaintiff possesses exclusive personality and publicity rights over all facets of his persona, including his name, likeness, image, voice, mannerisms, gestures and other uniquely identifiable characteristics. These rights protect him from unauthorised appropriation of his persona and prevent third parties from exploiting these rights without his express consent and authorisation.  
• The Plaintiff's name, image and persona have acquired unique distinctiveness, such that any unauthorised use by third parties causes confusion and deception amongst the general public regarding his affiliation with or endorsement of products or services. 
• The present suit arises from systematic violations of the Plaintiff's personality rights by multiple defendants across various digital platforms. Defendant Nos. 1 to 10 comprise various websites that unauthorisedly use the Plaintiff's name in direct relation to pornographic content hosted on their platforms.  
  • These include websites such as www.bfxxx.org, www.tubewap.xyz, www.xxxxpornvideo.com, www.xxxv.mobi, www.alldesiporn.com, and others. The association of the Plaintiff's name and persona with objectionable pornographic content constitutes a grave violation of his dignity and reputation. 
• Defendant Nos. 11 and 12 operate commercial websites (www.nextprint.in and www.fullyfilmy.in) that unauthorisedly sell T-shirts and merchandise bearing the Plaintiff's name, image and photograph, thereby commercially exploiting his persona without authorisation. Defendant Nos. 13 to 16 are registrants and Domain Name Registrars of the infringing websites. Defendant Nos. 18 and 19 are the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunication, Government of India.  
• Defendant No. 20 comprises unknown entities who are apprehended to be uploading and publishing infringing material on digital platforms.  
• The Plaintiff attempted resolution by sending legal notices to various Defendants, but these either went unanswered, were returned undelivered, or elicited responses refusing action, necessitating judicial intervention. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• Prima Facie Findings 
  • Upon consideration of the pleadings, documentary evidence and submissions presented by learned Counsel, the Court observed that it is prima facie clear that the attributes of the Plaintiff's persona, including his name and images, are being systematically misused by Defendant Nos. 1 to 13 and 20 without any authorisation from the Plaintiff. 
  • The Court noted that the Plaintiff is a celebrated personality in the entertainment industry. 
  • The depiction of the Plaintiff in settings that are misleading, derogatory and inappropriate—particularly in association with pornographic content—will inevitably have the deleterious effect of diluting the substantial goodwill and reputation associated with him. 
• Legal Principles on Personality Rights 
  • The Court articulated that the exploitation of one's personality rights puts at risk not merely economic interests, but also the fundamental right to live with dignity. 
  • Such exploitation potentially causes immeasurable and irreparable harm to reputation and goodwill. 
  • The unauthorised adoption of attributes such as name, image and likeness will inevitably cause confusion in the minds of members of the public regarding association with or endorsement by the Plaintiff. 
  • Such unauthorised use constitutes actionable passing off and misrepresentation. 
• Precedential Framework 
  • The Court grounded its observations in the established precedent of Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022) 6 HCC (Del) 641, wherein ad-interim ex-parte injunction was granted to protect a celebrity plaintiff from unauthorised use of his celebrity status. 
  • The Court also considered Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com & Ors. (order dated 09.09.2025), wherein injunctive relief was granted against misuse of personality rights through technological means including Artificial Intelligence. 
  • These precedents establish a consistent judicial approach recognising that personality rights merit robust protection, particularly against exploitation through modern technological means that enable widespread dissemination of infringing content across India. 

What is Section 12A of Commerical Court Act ? 

• Mandatory Pre-Institution Mediation 
  • Section 12A(1) provides that a suit which does not contemplate any urgent interim relief under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 shall not be instituted unless the plaintiff exhausts the remedy of pre-institution mediation. 
  • The pre-institution mediation shall be conducted in accordance with such manner and procedure as may be prescribed by rules made by the Central Government. 
• Authorisation of Mediation Authorities 
  • Section 12A(2) empowers the Central Government to authorise, by notification, the Authorities constituted under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 for the purposes of pre-institution mediation. 
• Time Limit for Mediation Process 
  • Section 12A(3) mandates that the Authority authorised by the Central Government shall complete the process of mediation within a period of three months from the date of application made by the plaintiff. 
  • The period of mediation may be extended for a further period of two months with the consent of the parties. 
  • The period during which the parties remained occupied with the pre-institution mediation shall not be computed for the purpose of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963. 
• Settlement Agreement 
  • Section 12A(4) provides that if the parties to the commercial dispute arrive at a settlement, the same shall be reduced into writing and shall be signed by the parties to the dispute and the mediator. 
• Legal Effect of Settlement 
  • Section 12A(5) provides that the settlement arrived at under this section shall have the same status and effect as if it is an arbitral award on agreed terms under sub-section (4) of Section 30 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.