The Delhi High Court has granted crucial interim protection to actor Kriti Sanon, restraining multiple entities from the unauthorised use of her identity, likeness, and voice through artificial intelligence. In a significant order passed on October 29, 2026, the court addressed the growing menace of synthetic media, specifically targeting sexually explicit deepfakes, impersonation accounts, and unauthorised AI-generated chatbots. While the court acknowledged the immediate harm faced by the actor, it maintained a cautious stance on the broader legal interpretation of personality rights, refusing to grant an omnibus injunction that could potentially stifle legitimate forms of creative expression.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav presided over the proceedings, where the court identified five distinct categories of misuse involving the actor's identity. These included fraudulent booking offers for public appearances, social media accounts on platforms like YouTube, Facebook, X, and Pinterest that falsely claimed to be her official presence, the circulation of AI-generated morphed images, the sale of unauthorised merchandise, and the deployment of AI chatbots or synthetic voice models. Most alarmingly, the lawsuit highlighted the proliferation of pornographic deepfakes using the actor’s likeness, a form of content the court found devoid of any expressive or artistic value.

The court directed several identified defendants to immediately disable access to specific URLs containing the objectionable material. Furthermore, it instructed government authorities to issue blocking directions against websites found to be hosting pornographic deepfakes. The order explicitly restrains the defendants from uploading, hosting, or generating further material that impersonates the actor, depicts her in sexually explicit settings, or exploits her identity for commercial gain through unauthorized means.

During the hearings, the court engaged deeply with the evolving jurisprudence surrounding personality rights in India. A central observation made by Justice Kaurav was that “personality rights” is not a singular, monolithic cause of action. Instead, the court noted it is a descriptive term for several distinct legal claims that may arise when an individual’s identity is misappropriated without consent. These claims often intersect with privacy, defamation, passing off, and statutory protections under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Copyright Act, 1957.

In his analysis, Justice Kaurav emphasized that the court must distinguish between these various interests. He observed, “Privacy, dignity and reputation are personal interests; they cannot be assigned and they end with the person. The right of publicity protects the commercial value of identity; it can be licensed.” By delineating these rights, the court sought to clarify that not every unauthorized use of a celebrity's image is a uniform violation, and thus, the legal threshold for intervention varies depending on the nature of the claim.

The court further addressed the limits of its own authority, cautioning against the dangers of blanket, or "omnibus," injunctions. The bench noted that such wide-reaching orders could unfairly restrict speech. Consequently, the court carved out a clear exception for legitimate public discourse. The order clarifies that it does not, and cannot, restrain news, review, criticism, commentary, satire, parody, caricature, or fan expression that does not fall under the prohibited categories of impersonation, obscene deepfakes, or unauthorized commercial exploitation.

Reflecting on the urgency of the situation, the court acknowledged the actor’s attempts to resolve the matter through the administrative reporting mechanisms provided by intermediaries. While only one defendant had meaningfully responded to her complaints filed on August 27, 2026, the court found the actor’s resort to litigation justified. The court’s order now serves as formal notice to the relevant intermediaries, satisfying the requirement for "actual knowledge" under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the associated Intermediary Guidelines.

The legal proceedings also touched upon the regulatory framework governing synthetic content. Under the 2026 Amendment Rules, the timeframe for intermediaries to remove content deemed unlawful under a court order or through specific complaint mechanisms has been significantly reduced, emphasizing the judiciary’s role in accelerating enforcement against digital harms. Despite the breadth of the protection granted, the court was careful to categorize these findings as prima facie, intended only to maintain the status quo until the contesting defendants can be fully heard on the merits of their positions.

As the litigation proceeds, the court’s focus remains on balancing the protection of individual dignity against the robust standards of free expression protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The case has raised complex questions regarding the threshold at which artistic parody transitions into an actionable infringement of an individual's right of publicity. These debates are expected to form the crux of the next phase of the lawsuit.

The matter is currently listed for further hearing on December 10, 2026. Until that time, the interim directions ensure that the most harmful forms of impersonation and deepfake imagery are curtailed, providing a degree of security to the actor while the broader legal questions regarding the intersection of technology and individual personality rights are rigorously tested in court. The defendants have been ordered to file their written statements within thirty days, and the court has mandated the filing of affidavits of admission and denial of documents to streamline the next stage of the pleadings.