Bombay High Court Fortifies Personality Rights Against AI Misuse in Suniel Shetty Case

MUMBAI – In a significant ruling that reinforces the judiciary's proactive stance against the burgeoning threat of artificial intelligence-driven misuse, the Bombay High Court has granted a comprehensive ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of veteran actor Suniel Shetty. The order, delivered by a single-judge bench of Justice Arif S Doctor, restrains a wide array of known and unknown entities from infringing upon the actor's personality and publicity rights through deepfakes, false endorsements, and other unauthorized digital manipulations.

The case, titled Suniel V Shetty v John Doe S Ashok Kumar , serves as a critical development in the evolving jurisprudence of personality rights in India, particularly at the intersection of celebrity identity, fundamental rights, and emerging technologies. The court's robust observations and the broad scope of its injunction offer a potent legal shield for public figures and set a clear precedent for navigating the complex challenges posed by generative AI.

The Core of the Suit: A "Lethal Combination" of Malice and Technology

Represented by Senior Advocate Dr. Birendra Saraf, Shetty approached the court seeking urgent protection against the unauthorized use of his persona. The suit detailed a multifaceted infringement, including the creation of AI-generated obscene images, impersonation on social media, the sale of unauthorized merchandise, and false endorsements for gambling websites and astrology services.

Dr. Saraf argued that Shetty's persona—encompassing his name, image, voice, signature, and distinctive mannerisms—has acquired substantial goodwill and distinctive value over a career spanning more than 100 films. He contended that the defendants were systematically misappropriating this identity for commercial gain, thereby violating Shetty's fundamental rights to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution and his moral rights under the Copyright Act, 1957.

Justice Doctor's order echoed these concerns in stark terms, describing the infringing acts as a “lethal combination of a depraved mind and the misuse of technology resultantly causing harm to the Plaintiff's personality rights.” This powerful language underscores the court's recognition of the malicious intent often behind such digital exploitation.

The court specifically highlighted the gravity of deepfake technology, observing that the “unauthorized creation/uploading of deepfake images of the Plaintiff on social media platforms constitutes a grave infringement not only of his personality rights but also of his right to live with dignity.” Furthermore, the unauthorized use of AI-generated images involving the actor’s family was condemned as a “blatant invasion of their privacy and their fundamental rights.”

Scope of the Injunction: A Future-Proof Framework

The interim injunction granted by the court is notable for its breadth and forward-looking nature. It restrains the defendants from using any uniquely identifiable attribute of Suniel Shetty—including his name, image, voice, likeness, and signature—across any medium without consent.

Crucially, the order explicitly extends this prohibition to emerging and future technologies. The court proscribed any use “through Artificial Intelligence generated content, deepfake videos, voice cloned audio, edited or morphed visuals, metaverse environments and any future formats or mediums.” This phrasing is a clear attempt by the judiciary to future-proof its orders against the rapid pace of technological advancement, ensuring the relief remains effective as new forms of digital manipulation arise.

This comprehensive approach reflects a growing judicial trend seen in similar cases involving celebrities like Anil Kapoor and Amitabh Bachchan, where courts have sought to create an all-encompassing protective framework around an individual's persona.

Intermediary Liability and Enforcement Mechanisms

Beyond restraining the primary infringers (many of whom are unknown "John Does"), the High Court issued specific, actionable directions to social media intermediaries, including Meta (operating Facebook and Instagram) and X Corp.

The platforms are directed to: 1. Takedown Mandate: Remove the infringing content identified in the plaint within one week. 2. Future Compliance: Act upon future written complaints from the plaintiff regarding similar misuse, establishing an ongoing obligation. 3. Disclosure of Information: Provide details of the infringers, including user names, addresses, IP logs, and any associated payment information, to enable the plaintiff to implead them in the suit.

These directions are significant for legal practitioners dealing with online infringement. They reinforce the obligations of intermediaries under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and provide a clear procedural pathway for rights holders to not only remove infringing content but also unmask anonymous offenders.

Economic Harm and Consumer Deception

The court also delved into the commercial torts underlying the infringement. It recognized the defendants' actions as a "deliberate conversion of the Plaintiff's goodwill into an unearned commercial advantage," a classic instance of misappropriation.

By creating a false impression of endorsement, the court noted, the infringers mislead the public and engage in "classic passing off, misappropriation of goodwill, and consumer deception." This analysis links the violation of personal rights directly to the economic harm inflicted upon the celebrity and the potential fraud perpetrated on the public, strengthening the legal basis for granting relief.

A Growing Judicial Consensus on Personality Rights

Suniel Shetty’s case joins a rapidly growing list of legal actions by Indian public figures seeking to protect their digital identities. Courts across the country, particularly the Delhi and Bombay High Courts, have consistently recognized and enforced personality rights, which, while not codified in a specific statute, are derived from Article 21 of the Constitution and common law principles.

This judicial activism is a direct response to the proliferation of generative AI tools that have made it alarmingly easy to clone voices, create deepfake videos, and misuse celebrity likenesses for commercial or malicious purposes. The orders in cases involving Amitabh Bachchan (voice), Anil Kapoor ("Jhakaas" catchphrase), and now Suniel Shetty (AI deepfakes) collectively build a robust common law framework that practitioners can rely upon.

The matter is scheduled for its next hearing on November 17, but the ad-interim order already stands as a formidable statement on the value and inviolability of an individual's persona in the digital age. For the legal community, it offers a clear and potent precedent in the ongoing battle to align legal protections with technological realities.