Delhi High Court to Rule on Abhishek Bachchan's Personality Rights Plea Amid AI and Deepfake Concerns

New Delhi – The Delhi High Court is set to pass an order in a lawsuit filed by Bollywood actor Abhishek Bachchan seeking comprehensive protection for his personality and publicity rights against widespread misuse, including the unauthorized use of his name, likeness, and AI-generated deepfakes. The proceedings before Justice Tejas Karia on Wednesday, September 10, highlighted the procedural complexities and evolving legal challenges in safeguarding a celebrity's persona in the digital age.

The lawsuit, filed just a day after a similar plea by his wife, actor Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, underscores a growing trend of celebrities turning to the judiciary to enforce their rights against a new wave of digital infringement powered by artificial intelligence.

The Core Allegations: From Fake Merchandise to Malicious AI

Representing Abhishek Bachchan, veteran intellectual property lawyer Pravin Anand presented a compelling case, arguing for the protection of the actor's publicity rights, personality rights, copyright, and the prevention of passing off. Anand detailed the extensive career of his client, who has acted in over 60 films and received numerous accolades, establishing a significant public persona that is now being unlawfully exploited.

"I have put his filmography. He has got 57 awards, of which 9 are filmfare awards," Anand submitted, emphasizing the goodwill and reputation at stake.

The infringements cited are diverse and deeply concerning. The defendants range from e-commerce sites like "The Bollywood Tee Shop" selling unauthorized merchandise to entities circulating fake autographed photographs. However, the most alarming aspect of the plea involves the use of sophisticated technology to create malicious content. Anand argued that defendant entities had "used Artificial Intelligence (AI) Systems to distort" Bachchan's image and had "circulated sexually objectionable material." He presented evidence of videos and fake news created using AI, describing them as insulting and capable of creating widespread misunderstanding.

"There are videos are using AI technologies to distort, a level which can create misunderstanding...my lord can see the video…its all fake news," he stated, illustrating the grave potential for reputational harm.

Procedural Hurdles and the Court's Pragmatic Approach

While acknowledging the gravity of the claims, Justice Tejas Karia adopted a meticulous and procedurally sound approach, refusing to issue a blanket injunction. During the pre-lunch session, the court emphasized the need for specificity, a crucial point for legal practitioners drafting similar pleas.

"Whatever is (on) YouTube we can direct Google to take down," Justice Karia orally observed. "What about the others, you have not joined them as party. You have not joined Amazon as party. You'll have to give URL specific to each...this document has to be divided defendant wise and put it in the form of a note otherwise we can't pass a relief which is not prayed for."

This judicial direction underscores a fundamental principle in online infringement cases: relief must be specific and targeted. The court's insistence on a defendant-wise list of URLs reflects a pragmatic understanding that broad, sweeping orders are difficult to enforce and may be challenged by intermediaries. Justice Karia also clarified the role of the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY), noting they are typically involved when a platform cannot be identified. Since the platforms in question were easily identifiable via their URLs, the onus was on the plaintiff to directly notify them through their designated grievance officers as per the Information Technology (IT) Rules.

In compliance, Anand’s team prepared and submitted a defendant-segregated list of infringing URLs in the post-lunch session.

A Novel Concern: Public Orders vs. Privacy

In a noteworthy exchange, Justice Karia raised a nuanced and critical concern about the potential unintended consequences of a public court order. "The other problem is also that making URL part of the order, because the order becomes public and once URL becomes public instead of protecting personality rights it may do more damage to the person's right?" he questioned.

This observation highlights a classic dilemma in digital enforcement: the very act of identifying and blocking harmful content in a public document can inadvertently amplify its reach. Anand, however, countered that the immediate blocking action by the platforms would mitigate this risk. He also drew the court's attention to the precedent set in actor Anil Kapoor's 2023 personality rights case, likely to guide the phraseology of the impending order to balance enforcement with discretion.

After considering these arguments, Justice Karia confirmed, "Yes, we will pass an order."

The Role of Intermediaries and 'John Doe' Defendants

The hearing also provided insight into the liability and cooperation of intermediaries like Google. Counsel for Google acknowledged that a majority of the infringing links originated from a specific set of defendants (10-14) and expressed willingness to comply with takedown directions.

The court and Google's counsel discussed the challenge of dealing with unidentified infringers, often impleaded as "John Doe" defendants. Justice Karia noted that for these unknown parties, the plaintiff would need to obtain Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) from the intermediary (Google) before they could be formally served notice. This, he acknowledged, is a time-consuming process.

"Problem here is that parties here are joined through you...therefore you will have to give BSI," the court remarked to Google's counsel. "After that notice and summons can be issued. That it will take a lot of time."

Google's counsel suggested that an observation from the court, creating a deterrent for these parties to remove content from all platforms once identified, might be effective.

Legal Context and Broader Implications

Bachchan’s lawsuit is the latest in a series of high-profile personality rights cases adjudicated by the Delhi High Court, which has become a vanguard in developing this area of jurisprudence in India. Previous rulings in favour of actors Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor, and Jackie Shroff have solidified the legal standing of personality rights, recognizing them as an intrinsic part of the right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

These cases have established that attributes such as a celebrity's name, image, voice, and even signature catchphrases ("jhakaas" for Anil Kapoor, "bhidu" for Jackie Shroff) are protectable intellectual property. Bachchan’s case, with its strong emphasis on AI-generated deepfakes and sexually explicit morphed content, pushes this jurisprudence into a new and more dangerous technological frontier.

For legal professionals, this case serves as a critical study in the evolving landscape of intellectual property and digital law. It demonstrates the necessity of meticulous evidence-gathering (specific URLs), the strategic use of John Doe orders, and navigating the procedural requirements for holding both identified and unidentified infringers accountable. The court's final order, which is expected soon, will be closely scrutinized for the framework it establishes to combat AI-driven reputational attacks while balancing judicial transparency and the plaintiff's right to privacy.

The matter has been listed for the next hearing on January 15, 2026, indicating the court's long-term oversight of the injunctions it is set to grant.