Delhi High Court Questions Jurisdiction In Jubin Nautiyal’s Personality Rights Suit, Asks Why Uttarakhand Courts Not Approached
Delhi High Court Questions Jurisdiction In Jubin Nautiyal’s Personality Rights Suit, Asks Why Uttarakhand Courts Not Approached
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has questioned the maintainability of a personality rights suit filed by singer Jubin Nautiyal, asking why he approached the Delhi High Court despite being based in Uttarakhand. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela raised concerns regarding territorial jurisdiction and forum selection.
Factual Background
Jubin Nautiyal instituted a suit seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights, alleging unauthorised exploitation of his name, voice, image, likeness and other attributes of his persona. He claimed infringement of his personality rights as well as violations of registered trademarks and copyrights. The suit named multiple defendants, including private entities and digital platforms, some of which are based abroad in jurisdictions such as Romania and the United Arab Emirates.
Procedural Background
At the preliminary hearing, the Court raised a query regarding territorial jurisdiction. The judge questioned why the suit was filed in Delhi when the plaintiff is based in Uttarakhand and when alleged infringing activities could be addressed by courts having jurisdiction there.
Counsel for the plaintiff argued that certain governmental authorities, including the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), are headquartered in Delhi, thereby conferring jurisdiction.
Issues
1. Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
2. Whether the presence of central ministries in Delhi is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction.
3. Whether personality rights suits can be filed in Delhi merely because digital platforms operate nationwide.
Contentions of the Parties
The plaintiff contended that several infringing entities operate from Delhi and that central authorities headquartered in the capital were arrayed as parties. Reliance was also placed on earlier personality rights cases filed before the Delhi High Court by celebrities such as Vivek Oberoi.
The Court, however, was not persuaded by these submissions. It termed the reliance on presence of ministries as “irrelevant” and questioned whether disputes arising from any part of the country should be brought before Delhi courts merely because a ministry is located in the capital.
Reasoning and Analysis
Justice Gedela observed that the case concerns alleged infringement by private entities and not the implementation of any governmental policy by ministries. The Court emphasized that mere presence of central ministries in Delhi does not automatically confer territorial jurisdiction.
The Bench also noted that earlier interim orders passed in personality rights matters do not constitute binding precedent on jurisdictional questions. It further observed that courts in Uttarakhand are fully competent to adjudicate such disputes, particularly when the plaintiff himself is based there.
Raising pointed queries, the Court asked whether digital accessibility of platforms like Google in Uttarakhand negates the jurisdiction of courts there. It questioned why the plaintiff believed that jurisdiction in Uttarakhand was unavailable.
Decision
The Court has not yet passed final orders. It has sought clarification on territorial jurisdiction and indicated that the maintainability of the suit in Delhi is under consideration.
