The Delhi High Court on Wednesday directed the removal of online content identified by former Indian cricketer Yuvraj Singh as violating his personality rights, while declining to issue a blanket order covering future content at this stage.

The bench headed by Justice Jyoti Singh ordered the takedown of the specific URLs listed in Singh's suit but clarified that any future infringing content would have to be brought before the Court for appropriate directions.

"For now I am directing the takedown of URLs that are part of the suit. If there is anything that comes up, file your application and I extend injunction after seeing they are infringing," the Court observed.

The Court further directed individuals who uploaded the allegedly infringing content to remove the identified URLs within a stipulated timeline.

It added that if the uploaders fail to comply, Singh would be at liberty to notify the concerned social media platforms and other intermediaries, which can then remove the content in accordance with the Court's order.

The intermediaries have been granted three weeks to file their replies.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on November 13.

The order was passed in a suit filed by Singh seeking protection of his personality rights and the removal of online content allegedly exploiting his name, image and identity without authorisation.

Appearing for Singh, Advocate Gaurav Bahl argued that several private parties were commercially exploiting the cricketer's personality by selling merchandise bearing his name and likeness. He also submitted that infringing content was available on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Flipkart and Amazon.

During the hearing, counsel for Reddit informed the Court that the platform hosted only one post concerning Singh, which had remained online for over two years.

Singh's counsel, however, contended that although the post was old, new comments continued to be added.

Responding to this, Reddit argued that objections to comments relating to Singh's alleged views on women would amount to a claim of defamation rather than a violation of personality rights.

The Court declined to examine that issue at this stage, noting that the transcript of the relevant post had not been placed on record.

"Then you will have to wait. You should have given the transcript at least. This has been there for last two years. You leave everything for the judge to do. You will have to leave this aside for the moment. You file your response on this," Justice Singh remarked.

Singh also relied on previous Delhi High Court orders protecting the personality rights of cricketers Abhishek Sharma, Gautam Gambhir and Sunil Gavaskar in support of his plea.

While directing the removal of the specific posts challenged in the suit, the Court declined to order the removal of all "similar or identical" content, observing that online intermediaries cannot be expected to determine whether future content is infringing.

"Who decides if it is similar content? It is a big debate. They are not adjudicators. They cannot decide infringing content," the Court observed.

Yuvraj Singh was represented by Advocates Gaurav Bahl, Anku Khanna, Arundhati Dhar, Harshita and Sachin Thakkar.