Shielding the Digital Image: Bombay HC Intervenes Against AI Misuse in Landmark Personality Rights Case

In a significant judicial maneuver aimed at the evolving threats of the digital age, the Bombay High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of renowned film actor Akshay Hari Om Bhatia, professionally known as "Akshay Kumar." The ruling, delivered by Justice Arif S. Doctor, addresses the unauthorized commercial exploitation and malicious use of the actor's persona through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and deepfake technology.

The Battle Over the Virtual Persona

The suit highlights an emerging frontier in legal disputes: the unauthorized use of a celebrity’s image, voice, and likeness in the digital realm. The Plaintiff asserted that his personality rights, right to privacy, and right to live with dignity—all protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution —were being systematically violated by various entities. The infringement reported ranges from the creation of AI-generated deepfake videos that falsely attribute inflammatory communal statements to the actor, to the unauthorized sale of merchandise and the promotion of betting applications using his likeness.

The Plaintiff, a public figure with over 160 million followers across major social media platforms, argued that the unauthorized use of his digital identity not only constitutes a violation of his "right of publicity" but also compromises his safety and that of his family, given the highly realistic and misleading nature of current deepfake technology.

Arguments: Protecting Identity in the Age of Algorithms

Representing the Plaintiff, Dr. Birendra Saraf emphasized that the actor has spent over 35 years building a distinct personal brand. He argued that the Defendants were engaging in "systematic misappropriation and unauthorized exploitation" for commercial gain.

The Plaintiff’s legal team categorized the violations into four main areas:

1. AI-Generated Deepfakes: The creation of forged trailers and videos where the actor is depicted in roles he never consented to, including inflammatory content.

2. Voice Cloning: The utilization of AI to clone the Plaintiff’s voice for unauthorized content generation.

3. Merchandise Misuse: The sale of branded goods and digital assets like GIFs and stickers using the actor's likeness without authorization.

4. False Endorsements: The superimposition of the actor’s image onto advertisements for betting and gambling platforms, deceiving the public into believing he endorses these services.

Legal Analysis and Precedents

The Court found that the Plaintiff’s personality attributes—name, voice, image, mannerisms, and distinctive signature—have become uniquely identifiable. Justice Doctor noted that the law cannot "turn a blind eye" to unauthorized usage of such attributes.

The Court drew heavily on established precedents, including:

* Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India and Ors. (2023) and Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff v. Peppy Store and Ors. (2024) , which solidified the protection of celebrity personality rights.

* Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.Com (2025) and Suniel Shetty v. John Doe (2025) , further affirming that unauthorized exploitation of public figures' personas is actionable.

Key Observations

The judgment reflects the court's concern regarding the capabilities of modern technology:

> "Having perused the material on record, 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. 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 deepfake video of the Plaintiff making communally inflammatory statements... is deeply concerning... such content needs to be removed from the public domain immediately, not only in the interest of the Plaintiff but also in the larger public interest."

The Court's Directive: A Digital Takedown

The Court’s order is far-reaching. It restrained the named Defendants from using, imitating, or misappropriating the Plaintiff’s indicia through any medium, including AI and the metaverse. Specifically:

* Takedown Orders: Platforms like Meta ( Instagram / Facebook ), X ( Twitter ), and Google ( YouTube ) have been directed to remove the identified infringing content within one week.

* P roactive Compliance: The platforms are also required to disable access to any future infringing content notified by the Plaintiff’s team.

* Information Disclosure: To curb the "clandestine" nature of unidentified infringers (labeled "John Doe"), the Court ordered platforms and domain registrars to provide subscriber and seller details to the Plaintiff to assist in legal action.

This order serves as a stern warning against the misuse of digital identity and sets a robust framework for how Indian courts will continue to treat the intersection of AI, celebrity privacy, and potential public disorder. The matter is set for further consideration on 12th November 2025.