Singer Sonu Nigam deactivated his X account back in 2017. The platform had completely exasperated him. Criticizing its content moderation policies, he chose to abandon the platform and solely maintain a verified presence on Instagram.
Yet, he unexpectedly found himself drawn back into the platform’s daily fray years later.
The cause?
A peculiar incident where another man from Bihar was using his exact name to post politically charged and communally provocative content.
ThePrint
Internet users, understandably enraged, began subjecting the singer and his family to severe online abuse, assuming he was the one posting. The catch? This particular Sonu Nigam was actually a criminal lawyer named Sonu Nigam Singh.
BOOM Fact Check
Singh had simply chosen to shorten his display name to “Sonu Nigam,” dropping his surname. This minor aesthetic decision led to a major headache for the musician, who saw his public image take a significant hit as internet users believed he was the one secretly active on the platform, airing controversial opinions. The problem escalated quickly; Singh’s account amassed over 90,000 followers and attracted notable political figures like Prime Minister Narendra Modi and former Union minister Smriti Irani.
Everyone thought they were privy to the thoughts of the famous singer.
This was far from the truth. The singer was eventually forced to pursue legal action to clear his name.
ThePrint
The Legal Battle for Personality Rights
The singer sought recourse through the Bombay High Court, filing a commercial intellectual property suit. The case wasn’t about copyright infringement for a song or film but rather the concept of personality rights. In India, a celebrity’s identity holds commercial value, and it is unlawful for anyone to use a person’s name, face, or likeness without their permission for online traction.
ThePrint
The singer’s lawyers argued that Singh was doing precisely that. The legal team claimed Singh was exploiting the singer’s fame and gaining social standing by leveraging a household name. While direct financial gain wasn’t proven, lawyers stated Singh benefited socially and reputationally from the confusion.
BOOM Fact Check
The lawsuit sought a permanent injunction to prevent Singh from using the name “Sonu Nigam” online and from displaying the singer’s likeness or other personal attributes without authorization. The legal principle in question is known as passing off, which typically involves one company misrepresenting its products as another’s to deceive buyers. Here, it was about one person’s digital persona being passed off as someone else’s. Even though the singer had not officially trademarked his name, the court acknowledged that his long public career had granted him specific legal protections.
Indiatimes
The Initial Orders and the Pushback
The court recognized the seriousness of the situation from the outset. On July 11, 2025, the court issued an ad-interim order. Justice R.I.
Chagla directed Singh to prominently display his full name on the platform and strictly refrain from using “Sonu Nigam” alone as his display name.
The judge noted that this impersonation was associating the singer’s persona with ignoble actions that severely damaged his public reputation.
LiveLawBiz
The court also addressed constitutional rights, stating that while citizens have freedom of speech under Article 21, it is not absolute. Celebrities retain their right to privacy, encapsulated by the “right to be let alone.” The court emphasized that even public figures are entitled to shield their families from any media content that infringes upon this fundamental right.
ThePrint
+ 1
Initially, Singh failed to comply with the order, leading to several extensions of the directive, which remained in force from August 2025 until May 2026. Growing impatient with the delays, the singer’s team filed a second interim application demanding immediate compliance. Under increasing legal pressure, Singh finally changed his handle to “@SonuNigamSingh.” As his profile was updated, the singer decided not to pursue the second application.
LiveLawBiz
A Quiet Settlement Ends the Feud
After a protracted legal battle, the situation took a turn towards an amicable resolution. Singh’s lawyer contacted the singer’s legal team to propose a settlement. The courtroom confrontations ceased, and both parties collaborated on drafting strict consent terms.
LiveLawBiz
On August 13, 2026, the case was officially concluded by Justice Madhav J. Jamdar at the Bombay High Court. The lawyers presented the agreed-upon terms to the judge. Saira Dawood Makani, representing the singer via power of attorney, was present in court, while Singh attended remotely via video conferencing.
LiveLawBiz
The final agreement was unambiguous: Singh committed to never again use the singer’s name, photograph, or likeness, “now and in perpetuity.” He pledged not to exploit or misappropriate the singer’s personality rights in any form. He could continue to operate his current account but only under the clear handle that included his full legal name.
LiveLawBiz
Justice Jamdar accepted the terms, recording the statements as undertakings to the court, and disposed of the commercial suit. The legal dispute was finally settled; the singer regained ownership of his digital identity, and the lawyer from Bihar kept his account but lost his ambiguous display name.
