Delhi HC Upholds Hrithik Roshan's Personality Rights Against AI Misuse

In a significant ruling that reinforces the evolving jurisprudence on celebrity rights in the digital era, the Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction protecting the personality and publicity rights of Bollywood actor Hrithik Roshan. The order restrains the unauthorized use of his name, image, voice, and likeness, specifically addressing the emerging threat of misuse through artificial intelligence (AI) and deepfake technology.

---

In the case of Hrithik Roshan vs Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors. , a single-judge bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora delivered a comprehensive order that extends robust protection to a celebrity's persona against unauthorized commercial exploitation. The Court affirmed that Roshan has established a prima facie case, finding that the balance of convenience lies in his favour and that he would suffer irreparable harm to his reputation if interim protection were denied.

This decision adds to a series of recent judgments from the Delhi High Court, including those involving actors Anil Kapoor, Jackie Shroff, and Karan Johar, which are collectively shaping India's legal framework on personality rights amidst rapid technological advancements.

Background of the Suit

Hrithik Roshan, a prominent figure in Indian cinema with a career spanning over two decades, approached the High Court seeking a permanent injunction against a wide array of defendants. His suit detailed multiple causes of action, ranging from the unauthorized sale of merchandise like T-shirts and bags bearing his image to the creation and circulation of obscene memes and GIFs.

Crucially, the plea highlighted the misuse of his persona through sophisticated technologies, including AI-generated audio clips in his voice, deepfakes, and morphed images. Roshan argued that these activities infringed upon his statutory rights under the Copyright Act, 1957, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as well as his common law rights to publicity, privacy, and the protection of his goodwill and reputation.

Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, representing Roshan, argued that numerous defendants, including John Doe entities, were unlawfully leveraging the actor's celebrity status for commercial gain and, in some cases, creating "vulgar and obscene content" that demeaned his public image.

The Court's Findings on Personality Rights

Justice Arora's order leaves little room for ambiguity regarding the protectability of a celebrity's persona. The Court explicitly held that Roshan’s identity attributes are legally protectable, a finding that is critical for future disputes in this domain.

"Therefore, prima facie the Plaintiff’s personality traits and/or parts thereof, including Plaintiff’s name Hrithik Roshan, voice, image, photograph, or likeness and other attributes are protectable elements of the Plaintiff’s personality rights. The Plaintiff is also entitled to protect itself against impersonation, false, obscene, morphed and distorted content created with the use of AI or otherwise, which is demeaning and lowers his reputation and goodwill," the Court observed.

This pronouncement underscores that personality rights are not confined to traditional mediums but extend to any form of representation, including those generated by AI. By specifically naming "deep fakes, machine learning, face morphing," the order provides a forward-looking shield against technologies that can dilute or tarnish a public figure's identity with unprecedented ease and scale.

The Court referenced established precedents, noting, "The Courts have consistently held that the unauthorized use of a person’s name, image, voice, or other distinctive attributes for commercial purposes constitutes an infringement of such right, amounting to dilution of the individual’s unique identity and leading to unearned commercial gain by others."

Scope and Nuances of the Injunction

The interim injunction is broad, restraining Defendant Nos. 1 (John Doe) and several other specified defendants from using any aspect of Roshan’s persona for creating merchandise or any other misuse, "either for monetary gains or otherwise."

The order also directs various intermediaries, including domain name registrars, e-commerce platforms, and social media sites, to take down infringing URLs and product listings. Furthermore, these entities have been instructed to provide Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) of the infringing users to Roshan's legal team within three weeks, enabling the plaintiff to implead them as identified parties in the suit.

However, the Court demonstrated judicial restraint by distinguishing between commercial exploitation and non-commercial fan activity. When counsel for Roshan pressed for the immediate takedown of fan pages that were allegedly "commercializing my client’s image," Justice Arora declined to pass such a sweeping ex parte order.

"We can’t have fan clubs taken down at this ex parte stage. Let those fans come; Mr. Roshan will then have to seek takedown of each fan club. He can’t pick and choose... I’m not willing at this stage to order removal of fan pages," the judge remarked during the hearing.

Instead of a takedown, the Court directed the relevant platforms to furnish the BSI details of the page creators, allowing for a more balanced adjudication after they have been heard. This approach carefully navigates the fine line between protecting intellectual property and safeguarding freedom of expression, a central tension in personality rights litigation.

Legal Implications and Broader Context

This ruling is a vital development for legal professionals practicing in intellectual property, media and entertainment law, and technology law.

1. Affirmation of AI-Related Infringement: The order explicitly acknowledges AI-driven misuse as a violation of personality rights. This provides a clear legal basis for public figures to combat the rising tide of deepfakes and unauthorized AI voice cloning for commercial or defamatory purposes.

2. Strengthening Intermediary Liability: By directing platforms to not only remove infringing content but also to provide user data, the Court is reinforcing the due diligence obligations of intermediaries. This facilitates the identification of anonymous infringers, a significant practical hurdle in online enforcement actions.

3. Judicial Prudence on Overreach: The Court's refusal to order a blanket takedown of fan pages ex parte is a crucial nuance. It signals that courts will scrutinize the nature of the use (commercial vs. non-commercial/transformative) before issuing injunctions that could have a chilling effect on speech. This will likely be a key battleground as personality rights jurisprudence continues to evolve.

4. A Trend of Proactive Protection: Roshan’s suit is part of a growing trend of public figures, from actors to spiritual leaders, approaching the Delhi High Court to proactively protect their digital identities. This indicates a rising awareness of the commercial and reputational value of one's persona and the need for preemptive legal action.

The interim order will remain in effect until the next date of hearing, scheduled for March 27, 2026. The case will continue to be closely watched as it progresses, particularly for its potential to set further precedent on the permissible boundaries of fan expression and the precise contours of liability for AI-generated content.