Back
: Actor Rakesh Bedi Files for Protection Against Misuse
Actor Rakesh Bedi has moved the seeking an to protect his —the right to control the commercial use of his name, voice, image, and likeness—against unnamed infringers. Filed as a against “” defendants, the case adds to a rapidly expanding docket of celebrity personality-rights litigation before the court, much of it driven by the proliferation of AI-generated content and deepfakes. The matter was initially listed before Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, who directed it to the bench dealing with matters for further proceedings. No has been passed on the as of yet.
The Rise of Litigation
, also known as , are the legal entitlements of individuals—typically celebrities or public figures—to control the of their identifiable attributes. These attributes include name, image, likeness, voice, signature, and other distinctive traits. The underlying premise is that a celebrity’s identity carries economic value, built through personal effort and reputation, and that unauthorised third parties should not be permitted to free-ride on that value for commercial gain.
In India, these rights are not codified in a single statute but have been developed through , often under the broader umbrella of the under , as well as through intellectual property laws such as the . The has emerged as the principal forum for personality-rights enforcement, with a steady stream of cases filed by actors, cricketers, politicians, and content creators seeking injunctions against unauthorised merchandise, endorsements, and—most recently—AI-generated impersonations.
Bedi’s follows a now-familiar pattern: a celebrity approaches the court against “” defendants—unknown persons who often operate anonymously online. The court is asked to grant a order, which allows the to operate against unnamed infringers and also directs intermediaries (such as social media platforms and hosting services) to take down the offending content. Such orders are particularly effective in tackling the fast-moving nature of digital misuse.
The AI Dimension
A recurring theme in the current wave of personality-rights cases is the misuse of generative artificial intelligence. Celebrities have complained about deepfake videos that superimpose their faces onto other bodies, AI-cloned voices used in false endorsements, and manipulated images that appear to show them engaging in activities they never did. These technologies have made it trivial to fabricate a celebrity’s identity at scale, raising urgent questions about the adequacy of existing legal frameworks.
Bedi’s is understood to target similar forms of misuse. While the precise details of his pleadings are not yet public, the case joins a growing list where the has been called upon to address the intersection of and AI. Recent examples include orders protecting actors Tabu, Allu Arjun, and Mohanlal, as well as journalist Sudhir Chaudhary and podcaster Raj Shamani, each involving AI-generated content. The court has demonstrated a willingness to grant swift , particularly when the misuse is clearly commercial or .
Limits of Protection: Balancing Rights with
As the docket expands, the has also begun to articulate the boundaries of personality-rights protection. In several recent matters, the court has declined to grant blanket injunctions covering all uses of a celebrity’s identity. Instead, it has confined relief to specific categories—such as obscene or clearly infringing content—while leaving open questions about that lacks clear proof of monetisation.
For instance, in the case of actor Janhvi Kapoor, the court refused a and limited to sexually explicit material, directing that broader claims of unauthorised commercial use be heard further. Similarly, in Meenakshi Chaudhary’s , the court granted relief only against obscene content, noting that the claim of was not substantiated. These decisions reflect an effort to strike a balance between protecting a celebrity’s economic and reputational interests and preserving the right to legitimate speech, criticism, commentary, parody, and news reporting.
The court has also appointed in several of these cases to assist in developing a coherent legal framework for in the digital age. The clubbing of multiple suits before Justice Bhambhani suggests that the may soon deliver a more comprehensive ruling on the scope and limits of these rights.
Implications for Legal Practice
For legal practitioners, the surge in personality-rights litigation presents both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, there is a clear demand for representation from celebrities and public figures who need rapid action against online misuse. The mechanism, combined with under the , offers a powerful tool. On the other hand, the law remains in flux, and courts are increasingly scrutinising the evidentiary basis for injunctions—demanding proof of monetisation, consumer confusion, or reputational harm.
The AI dimension adds complexity. Proving that a deepfake was created without consent or that a cloned voice is being used for commercial purposes may require technical evidence that many litigants are not yet prepared to present. Moreover, the anonymity of online infringers makes enforcement difficult, even with a order. Intermediary compliance varies, and cross-border jurisdictional issues often arise.
For defendants, the risk of being caught by a broad order is real. Legitimate users—including critics, satirists, and news outlets—may find their content taken down if it falls within the scope of a vaguely worded . The court’s recent caution against blanket relief is a welcome development for free expression, but the onus is on defendants to appear and argue their case, which may not always be feasible for anonymous or small-scale users.
Conclusion
Rakesh Bedi’s is the latest chapter in a fast-evolving area of Indian intellectual property law. As the continues to refine the contours of , the outcome of this and related cases will have significant implications for how celebrities—and indeed all individuals—can control the use of their identity in the age of AI. For now, the case has been assigned to the IPD bench, and the legal community will be watching closely for the court’s next move.
Case Title:
Court:
Status: filed; directed to the Intellectual Property Division bench. No on reported.
