Delhi High Court Orders Google to Technologically Address Sadhguru Deepfakes, Shifting Onus from Plaintiff - 2025-10-18

Delhi High Court Orders Google to Technologically Address Sadhguru Deepfakes, Shifting Onus from Plaintiff

New Delhi – In a significant development concerning intermediary liability and the burgeoning threat of deepfakes, the Delhi High Court has directed Google LLC to proactively use its technology to remove misleading content that infringes upon the personality rights of spiritual leader Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev. The order, passed by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, marks a potential shift from a purely reactive takedown model to a more technologically-driven, preventive approach, placing a greater onus on intermediaries to police their platforms for infringing content.

The Court has mandated a collaborative meeting between Google and Sadhguru's legal team to identify infringing content that falls within the exceptions of Google's own advertising policies. Following this, the Court directed that Google "must make an endeavour to ensure that the identical or similar content is removed through its technology so as to obviate the Plaintiff's onus of looking out for such URLs."

This directive aims to relieve the plaintiff from the "Sisyphean task" of endlessly identifying and reporting identical or similar infringing links, a common challenge in digital intellectual property enforcement. The order represents a critical judicial interpretation of an intermediary's responsibilities in the age of AI-generated misinformation.

---

Background: The Dynamic+ Injunction and Personality Rights

The recent hearing is part of an ongoing suit, SADHGURU JAGADISH VASUDEV & ANR v. IGOR ISAKOV & ORS , where Sadhguru is seeking comprehensive protection of his personality rights against infringement by various rogue websites and unknown entities.

Earlier this year, on May 30, a coordinate bench led by Justice Saurabh Banerjee had granted a sweeping "john doe" and "dynamic+ injunction" in favor of Sadhguru. This order recognized the unique persona of the spiritual leader, stating he "has acquired uniqueness pertaining to his personality qua his voice, name, signature, image, likeness, vocal, articulation style and his unique attire, looks or appearance."

Justice Banerjee’s order was pivotal, establishing that the protection of personality rights must evolve to counter the rapid advancements in technology, particularly Artificial Intelligence. He noted, "The rights of a plaintiff, cannot be rendered otiose in this world of rapidly developing technology and for that, enforcement of intellectual property rights on any social platform... ought to be visible and effective." The dynamic+ injunction is an advanced legal tool that allows for the prospective blocking of websites and platforms that continue to host infringing content, even if they emerge after the initial court order.

The Shift to Proactive Technological Enforcement

While Google’s counsel stated that URLs identified in the May takedown order had been removed, Sadhguru's counsel, led by Mr. Sai Krishna Rajagopal, argued that the reactive approach was insufficient. They presented a YouTube link as a "gross misrepresentation" falling within the category of misleading content identified by Google's own Ads policy.

The core of the plaintiff's argument rested on Rule 4(4) of The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021. This rule mandates that significant social media intermediaries must "endeavour to deploy technology-based measures... to proactively identify" specific types of content. Sadhguru's counsel contended that this provision obligates Google to develop and implement technology to automatically identify and takedown identical infringing content, thereby preventing the need for repeated manual reporting.

The Court's subsequent order reflects a strong inclination toward this interpretation. By directing Google to "make an endeavour to ensure that the identical or similar content is removed through its technology," Justice Arora has placed the burden of technological solution-finding squarely on the platform.

Legal and Technological Implications

This order carries profound implications for legal practitioners, technology companies, and intellectual property holders navigating the digital landscape.

1. Strengthening Intermediary Responsibility: The directive moves beyond the traditional "notice-and-takedown" safe harbor provisions. It suggests that for certain types of pervasive and harmful content, especially those violating a platform's own policies, intermediaries have an affirmative duty to use their technological prowess to prevent its recurrence. This aligns with a global trend of expecting more from Big Tech in content moderation.

2. Operationalizing Rule 4(4) of the IT Rules: The Court's reliance on the "endeavour to deploy technology-based measures" language in the IT Rules provides judicial weight to a provision that has been subject to debate. This order could serve as a precedent for other plaintiffs seeking proactive enforcement against intermediaries for copyright infringement, deepfakes, and other forms of misinformation.

3. The Technological Challenge: The order acknowledges potential technological hurdles. Justice Arora has given Google an opportunity to file an affidavit detailing any "technological limitations or reservations" it may have regarding the implementation of such a system. This sets the stage for a crucial dialogue between the judiciary and technology giants about what is technologically feasible versus what is legally desirable. The outcome of this exchange will be closely watched, as it could define the technical standards intermediaries are held to in future cases.

4. A New Paradigm for IP Enforcement: For brand owners, celebrities, and public figures, this ruling offers a new avenue for relief. Instead of playing a perpetual game of "whack-a-mole" with infringing URLs, they can now argue for court-mandated, automated enforcement systems. This is particularly relevant in combating deepfakes, where AI-generated content can be replicated and disseminated across numerous platforms at an exponential rate.

In a statement reflecting a willingness to cooperate, Google's counsel affirmed that the company would adopt a "collaborative approach" with Sadhguru to address his concerns. The upcoming meeting between the two parties will be critical in defining the parameters of this technological enforcement and will likely set a practical framework for how such orders are implemented.

As Indian courts, particularly the Delhi High Court, continue to pioneer legal remedies like the dynamic+ injunction to address digital-age challenges, this latest order pushing for proactive technological solutions marks another step in the evolution of jurisprudence. It underscores a clear judicial message: in the battle against digital falsehoods and identity misuse, the law will not only follow technology but will actively direct its deployment for the protection of rights and dignity.