What is a John Doe Injunction?

Why in the News ?

On 24 January, Judge Sachin Mittal of the Saket District Court, Delhi imposed a temporary ban on a video uploaded on a YouTube channel.

• The video made allegations against late spiritual guru Nirmal Singh Maharaj (Chhatarpur Wale Guruji).
• Title of the video: “Jai Guruji — Fraud Baba.”
• Words such as “fraud,” “cheating,” and “loot” were used.
• Guruji Ashram Trust claimed the video was defamatory.
• The Trust requested the court to:
  • Immediately remove the video, and
  • Prevent any future uploading or sharing of the same content.

The court issued an Ad-Interim Ex-Parte John Doe Injunction, meaning the order was passed without hearing the other party, to prevent immediate harm.

Key Background

• In the digital era, information spreads rapidly through social media, websites and video platforms.
• While this strengthens freedom of expression, it also increases problems such as:
  • Copyright infringement
  • Defamation
  • Fake news
  • Digital piracy
• In many cases, the real offender cannot be identified.
• To deal with such situations, courts use a special legal order known as a John Doe Injunction.

What is a John Doe Injunction ?

A John Doe Injunction is a court order that applies to both:

• Known persons, and
• Unknown or unidentified persons.

When the identity of the wrongdoer is unknown, the court issues the order against a fictional name called “John Doe.”
If harm is certain or likely but the offender cannot be identified, the court can restrain unknown persons from continuing the harmful activity.

• In India, it is also commonly called an “Ashok Kumar Order.”

Objectives of a John Doe Injunction

The main purposes are:

• Preventing copyright theft
• Stopping defamatory content
• Controlling fake news and rumors
• Preventing digital piracy
• Protecting rights before irreversible damage occurs

When is it Issued ?

A John Doe Injunction is issued when:

• The offender’s identity is unknown.
• The harm can spread rapidly (internet, TV, social media).
• Compensation later may not be sufficient.
• Immediate action is necessary to prevent damage.

How Does It Work ?

When a person, company, or institution files a petition claiming:

• Their legal rights are being violated, or
• Their reputation is being harmed, and
• The offender is unknown,

The court may direct:

• Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
• Social media platforms
• Websites
• Cable operators

to remove, block, or stop the circulation of the harmful content.

Understanding Through Examples

Example 1: Film Piracy

A film producer fears that a movie may be leaked on pirate websites before release.
The producer obtains a John Doe Injunction.

Result:

• Suspected websites are blocked.
• Unknown persons are restrained from uploading the movie.

Example 2: Defamation

A fake and defamatory video about a person goes viral online.
The uploader is unknown.

Result:

• The court issues a John Doe Injunction.
• The video is removed from all platforms.
• Re-uploading becomes illegal.

Use of John Doe Injunctions in India

Commonly used in:

• Movie piracy cases
• IPL live streaming piracy
• Web series leaks
• Defamatory social media content

Famous cases include:

• Singham
• PK
• Baahubali
• IPL Broadcast Rights cases

Legal Basis in India

John Doe Injunctions are supported by:

• Copyright Act, 1957
• Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)
• Inherent powers of High Courts

Advantages

• Prevents damage before it occurs
• Fast and effective judicial remedy
• Protects creators and intellectual property
• Controls digital crimes

Criticism and Challenges

• Sometimes even legitimate websites get blocked.
• May affect freedom of speech.
• Risk of over-blocking.
• Lack of transparency in enforcement.

Therefore, courts now emphasize balanced and limited use of such orders.

Freedom of Speech vs John Doe Injunction

Under the Indian Constitution:

• Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of Speech and Expression
• Article 19(2) – Reasonable Restrictions

Courts can impose restrictions in cases involving defamation, public order, morality, etc.

• Freedom of speech does not mean freedom to harm someone’s reputation or legal rights.