Acharya Balkrishna's personality rights case cites 2021 post criticizing Baba Ramdev
Acharya Balkrishna's personality rights suit filed at the Delhi High Court cites a 2021 post by advocate Avani Bansal, which criticized Baba Ramdev's statements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
A personality rights lawsuit filed by Acharya Balkrishna, co-founder of Patanjali Ayurved, in the Delhi High Court has cited a 2021 social media post authored by Supreme Court advocate Avani Bansal. The post is part of the legal material presented by Balkrishna in his suit.
Bansal received notification from X (formerly Twitter) on August 20, 2026, stating that a civil lawsuit had been filed concerning her account. The notification indicated that the suit alleged her posts violated Indian law and advised her to seek legal counsel, contest the case, or pursue another resolution.
The post by Bansal, dated May 31, 2021, criticized Baba Ramdev for his statements regarding allopathy and healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. It linked to an article Bansal had written for The Leaflet, titled “Sorry, But Not Sorry! Baba Ramdev’s Statements Amount To Criminal Offence.” The article examined legal provisions applicable to Ramdev’s statements, including Sections 505 (1) (b) and (c) of the Indian Penal Code, and Balkrishna's public remarks during the controversy.
Balkrishna's suit seeks to protect his name, image, voice, and other identity attributes as personality rights. The court granted interim relief, finding that some of the submitted material appeared defamatory or disparaging. However, during a hearing on March 23, 2026, the court noted that public figures must be prepared for criticism. It also suggested that the use of public figures' names and images for satire, parody, or academic purposes could fall under free speech protections.
According to independent researcher Aakanksha Kumar, Bansal's post falls within this distinction. Kumar stated that mere annoyance or offense does not equate to defamation and that Bansal's post constitutes criticism rather than commercial appropriation of Balkrishna's persona. The broader question of whether personality rights claims can extend to criticism and legal commentary on public figures remains, depending on the specific legal claims and facts presented.