Delhi High Court Grants 'Dynamic+' Injunction to Protect Sadhguru's Personality Rights from AI-Generated Deepfakes - 2026-05-24

Guarding the Digital Persona: Delhi HC Strikes Down AI-Driven Deepfakes of Sadhguru

In a significant move to address the growing menace of AI-generated impersonation, the Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim and "dynamic+" injunction in favor of spiritual leader Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev and the Isha Foundation. The ruling aims to curb the widespread unauthorized use of his likeness, voice, and persona to facilitate fraudulent financial and product scams across digital platforms.

The Backdrop: A Digital "Pandemic"

The dispute arose as the plaintiffs discovered a series of "rogue websites" and social media accounts deploying sophisticated AI tools to manipulate the spiritual leader's voice and imagery. These doctored contents were used to create false narratives—such as fake news reports about his detention—or to promote dubious financial schemes and health products. The court noted that these infringing sites operate like "hydra-headed" entities; blocking one often leads to the mushrooming of dozens of identical or near-identical "mirror" sites.

Arguments and Legal Strategy

The plaintiffs argued that the unauthorized usage of Sadhguru’s personality rights was not only harming his global reputation but was also defrauding the public. The legal team highlighted that the defendants utilized advanced voice cloning and deepfake technology to build credibility for investment platforms and commercial products without consent.

Counsel for the plaintiffs emphasized that in a world of rapidly evolving technology, protecting a public figure's identity from malicious AI-driven misuse is essential not just for the individual, but to uphold public trust and integrity in digital discourse.

Decoding the 'Dynamic+' Injunction

The court’s decision to grant a "dynamic+" injunction reflects a proactive stance against modern digital piracy. Recognizing the technological complexity of the situation, the Court noted: > "This so-called dangerous edge has become even sharper with the fast-paced evolution of certain ‘hydra-headed’ websites, which, even if blocked/ deleted, have the incredible potential to resurface in multitudes as alphanumeric or mirror websites."

By invoking this remedy, the court has authorized the plaintiffs to notify the concerned authorities (such as DoT and MEITY) to block newly discovered infringing websites or social media channels as they appear, without needing to return to court for a fresh injunction for every iteration of the fraud.

Key Observations

The judgment underscores the judiciary's willingness to adapt to the realities of the AI age:

• On the Nature of Harm : "Any misrepresentation of his endorsement risks irreparable damage not only to his personal reputation but also to public trust at large."
• On Technological Misuse : "The impugned contents herein are not only utilizing the plaintiff no. 1’s personality rights but the primary defendants have gone a step further and employed modern day technology to modify the images, voice, likeness, videos etc. for commercial gains."
• On the Need for Real-Time Relief : "If allowed to continue in the manner it will soon spread like a pandemic with wide uncontrollable repercussions... If not stopped, the chances that (wrong) message will spread like wild fire with hardly any water left to douse it."

The Verdict and Its Ripple Effect

The High Court has ordered the suspension and disabling of specific domains and social media accounts identified in the plaint. Furthermore, it has empowered the plaintiffs to approach service providers to remove deepfake content within a 36-hour window should new instances be discovered.

This ruling stands as a stern warning to operators of rogue platforms that exploit celebrity personas through AI. For legal practitioners, the decision reinforces the utility of the "dynamic+" approach in protecting intellectual property and personality rights in the age of generative AI, where the pace of infringement far outstrips traditional litigation timelines. The case is now listed for further proceedings on October 14, 2025.