Back
To Pass Order On Vijay Deverakonda's Plea Against
The on Thursday indicated it will pass an order on actor Vijay Deverakonda’s application for in his seeking protection of his . Justice Vikas Mahajan, after a brief hearing, issued in the and on the plea, with the court stating, “I will pass an order.” The case highlights the growing legal battle by celebrities against of their identity, particularly through , , and fake endorsements.
Background: The Rise of Litigation
India does not have a standalone statute governing personality or . Instead, courts have built the doctrine through a patchwork of constitutional provisions, common law torts, and statutory protections. , which guarantees the and dignity—firmly established by the in the Puttaswamy case—forms the constitutional bedrock. Additionally, the prevents false suggestions of , while the provides . The also addresses identity theft and impersonation online.
The concept took shape in 2012 when the ruled on a jeweller’s unauthorised use of Amitabh and Jaya Bachchan’s photographs after an contract had expired. That judgment defined the right of publicity as the right to control the commercial use of one’s identity. Since then, the court has issued a series of “John Doe” orders—injunctions against unknown potential —protecting a wide range of public figures, including actors Anil Kapoor, Jackie Shroff, Allu Arjun, and Mohanlal, as well as cricketers, spiritual leaders, and journalists.
Deverakonda’s Case: AI Manipulation and Fake Endorsements
, appearing for Deverakonda, submitted that the actor is aggrieved by multiple forms of unauthorised use. These include fake endorsements where third parties pretend to be his agents, through merchandise bearing his images and personality traits, and that digitally manipulates his photographs. Sukumar also sought the of obscene and offensive content using foul language linked to his persona.
The counsel informed the court that after the was filed and served on some , certain offending URLs had already been removed. This indicates that the mere filing of the can prompt voluntary compliance by some . However, the court’s interim order will likely address the broader range of alleged violations, including those by unknown persons who may be using AI tools to create deceptive content.
Parallel by Kangana Ranaut
On the same day, Justice Mahajan also heard a similar filed by actor and BJP MP Kangana Ranaut. Her counsel, , targeted fake news and about her. The court observed that an animated piece and a meme appeared to be satirical, and Sikri stated he was not pressing for their removal at this stage. Some had already taken down content after receiving an advance copy of the . The court listed the matter for , after directing an amended memo of parties.
Ranaut’s case underscores the challenge courts face in distinguishing between protected satire and actionable impersonation or . The court’s willingness to accept that certain content may be satirical reflects the nuanced balancing act between and free expression.
Legal Analysis: Sources and Scope of
The has become a leading forum for claims. In the landmark Amitabh Bachchan case (2022), the court issued what is described as its first “John Doe” order, allowing the celebrity to act against unknown . In 2023, it protected Anil Kapoor’s name, image, voice, and “jhakaas” against AI tools, GIFs, and . The court has also extended protection to Jackie Shroff, including against AI chatbots mimicking his voice and mannerisms.
Other protected individuals include Karan Johar, Abhishek and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, journalist Sudhir Chaudhary, podcaster Raj Shamani, and cricketers Yuvraj Singh, Abhishek Sharma, and Sunil Gavaskar. The has similarly protected singer Arijit Singh against AI .
The legal basis for these orders often combines Article 21, the , and statutory rights under the Copyright and Trade Marks Acts. Courts have recognised that are not absolute; they must be balanced against . However, where the use is purely commercial, defamatory, or falsely implies , the balance tilts in favour of the celebrity.
Impact on Legal Practice
The surge in cases has significant implications for legal practitioners. First, it underscores the need for proactive IP strategies: celebrities and public figures should register their names, catchphrases, and likenesses as trademarks where possible. Second, the reliance on means lawyers must be adept at drafting broad injunctions that cover unknown , including those who may use emerging technologies like generative AI.
Third, the absence of a specific statute means that arguments often rely on analogies from existing laws and constitutional principles. Counsel must be prepared to cite the growing body of case law, particularly from the , to persuade courts to expand protection. Fourth, the technical nature of requires lawyers to understand how and voice clones are created, and to present evidence of effectively.
For , the risks are substantial. A John Doe order can result in the of entire websites or social media accounts without a full hearing. The court often appoints a local commissioner to seize infringing material, and non-compliance can lead to . Businesses and content creators must therefore exercise caution when using a celebrity’s image or voice, even in parody or commentary, as the line between and infringement remains uncertain.
Conclusion
Justice Mahajan’s impending order in Deverakonda’s case will add to the growing jurisprudence on in the digital age. As AI tools become cheaper and more accessible, the need for robust legal protection is likely to intensify. The ’s proactive approach—issuing interim injunctions quickly and covering unknown —provides a template for other jurisdictions. For now, celebrities have a powerful weapon in their legal arsenal, but the balance with and innovation will continue to be tested in courtrooms across the country.
