Bombay HC Flags ‘Alarming’ Realism of AI Deepfakes in Akshay Kumar Personality Rights Case

Mumbai, India – The Bombay High Court has issued a stark warning about the sophisticated and deceptive nature of AI-generated deepfakes, describing their realism as "truly alarming" while granting ex-parte ad-interim relief to Bollywood actor Akshay Kumar. The court’s observations underscore a growing judicial concern over the weaponization of AI against public figures and the potential for such content to disrupt public order.

In an October 15 order, Justice Arif S. Doctor granted a John Doe injunction protecting Kumar’s personality and publicity rights from widespread, unauthorized commercial exploitation. The ruling is the latest in a series of high-profile cases where Indian celebrities are turning to the courts for protection against a new wave of digital threats, creating a rapidly evolving jurisprudence in the absence of specific AI-governing legislation.

The Core of the Suit: Unprecedented Misuse of Persona

Akshay Kumar, legally Akshay Hari Om Bhatia, filed a commercial intellectual property suit against unknown entities, seeking a permanent injunction to halt the rampant misuse of his name, likeness, voice, and other distinctive attributes. The actor's legal team, led by Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf, presented evidence of a multifaceted and technologically advanced infringement campaign.

The examples cited were varied and severe, ranging from counterfeit merchandise and deceptive brand endorsements to highly sophisticated AI-generated content. Among the most concerning were a fake movie trailer depicting Kumar as Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, which amassed nearly two million views, and a deepfake video showing him making communally inflammatory statements about Maharishi Valmiki, which reportedly triggered regional protests.

The suit also highlighted the democratization of this technology, pointing to websites offering tools like an "AI Akshay Kumar V2 Voice" that can clone the actor's voice from any text input. This commercialization of identity theft, Saraf argued, causes "grave and irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation" and poses a significant threat not just to the actor but to the public at large.

Justice Doctor's Alarming Observations

In his order, Justice Doctor expressed profound concern over the quality of the AI manipulations, which he noted were becoming indistinguishable from reality. This realism, he argued, magnifies the potential for harm.

"I must note that what is truly alarming in a number of these cases is the realistic nature of deepfake images/videos that are being created by using AI," Justice Doctor observed. "Both in the context of images and videos, the morphing is so sophisticated and deceptive that it is virtually impossible to discern that the same are not genuine images/videos of the Plaintiff."

The court went beyond the infringement of individual rights, connecting the dissemination of such content to broader societal risks. The judge identified the deepfake video containing inflammatory religious commentary as a matter of public interest, highlighting the potential for such content to incite unrest.

"The consequences that can arise from such content being disseminated are indeed most grave and serious," the order stated. "Apart from violating and affecting the Plaintiff's personality and moral rights, such videos also pose a grave threat to the safety and well-being of the Plaintiff’s family members and can also have an adverse and widespread impact on society and public order, which clearly appears to be the agenda of those who create such content."

This reasoning formed the basis for granting immediate ex-parte relief, with the judge opining that any delay "would be defeated" given the "gravity and potential for irreversible harm."

A Legal Avalanche: The Judiciary Confronts the AI Menace

Akshay Kumar's case is not an isolated incident but part of a significant legal trend. A growing cohort of India's most prominent public figures—including Amitabh Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai and Abhishek Bachchan, Hrithik Roshan, Anil Kapoor, and veteran singer Asha Bhosle—have recently secured similar court protections. This "legal avalanche" signals a concerted effort by the entertainment industry to establish clear legal boundaries for the use of their personas in the digital age.

The cases reveal the expanding scope of violations: * The Bachchan Family: Filed a 1,500-page lawsuit against YouTube over "sexually explicit" AI-manipulated videos, seeking damages and demanding that the platform prevent its content from being used to train AI models without consent. * Anil Kapoor: Secured a landmark victory in 2023 against 16 defendants, earning international recognition for his proactive stance against AI misuse. * Asha Bhosle: Obtained protection from the Bombay High Court against AI-generated reproductions of her iconic voice, which the court noted could be used to create entirely new "Asha Bhosle songs" without her involvement or consent.

These cases are solidifying the legal framework around "personality rights" in India. This bundle of rights, encompassing the Right to Publicity (controlling commercial use of one's identity) and the Right to Privacy (protection from unauthorized intrusion and misrepresentation), is being interpreted robustly by the courts to meet the challenges posed by generative AI.

The Power of the John Doe Injunction

A key legal tool being employed in these suits is the "John Doe" or "Ashok Kumar" injunction. This type of order is issued against unknown defendants, which is crucial in the digital realm where infringers often operate anonymously, sometimes from the dark web. The injunctions typically direct social media platforms, internet service providers, and domain registrars to take down and block access to the infringing content, providing a broad and effective remedy against widespread, anonymous violations.

The Legislative Gap and the Path Forward

While the judiciary has been remarkably proactive, these cases highlight a significant legislative vacuum. India currently lacks specific laws governing AI, deepfakes, or digital impersonation. The courts are creatively applying principles from intellectual property law, the law of torts (passing off), and constitutional rights (Right to Privacy under Article 21) to provide relief.

Legal experts argue that while this judicial activism is commendable, it is not a substitute for a comprehensive legislative framework. A dedicated law could provide clearer definitions, establish statutory damages, delineate platform liability, and create streamlined takedown procedures. The Bachchan family's demand to prevent unauthorized AI training on uploaded content points to the next frontier of this legal battle—addressing the foundational data that fuels generative AI models.

As AI technology continues its exponential advance, the legal principles established in these celebrity-led cases will likely form the bedrock for future regulations that protect not only public figures but all citizens from the profound challenges of digital identity theft and misinformation. The Bombay High Court's clear-eyed assessment of the "alarming" threat serves as a critical call to action for both the legal community and lawmakers.