Indian Courts Forge New Frontier in Personality Rights Amid AI Deepfake Onslaught

New Delhi/Mumbai – In a significant week for intellectual property and media law, Indian High Courts have intensified their efforts to protect public figures from the unauthorized use of their identities, particularly in the face of rapidly advancing artificial intelligence (AI) and deepfake technology. On October 10, 2025, both the Delhi and Bombay High Courts took up pleas from prominent personalities, establishing crucial precedents in the evolving jurisprudence of personality and publicity rights. The legal actions, initiated by journalist Sudhir Chaudhary and actor Suniel Shetty, and followed by a fresh plea from singer Kumar Sanu, underscore a growing judicial consensus to safeguard an individual's name, image, voice, and likeness from digital exploitation.

These cases highlight the judiciary's proactive stance in addressing the legal voids created by new technologies. As AI tools become more accessible, the unauthorized creation of convincing deepfakes for commercial gain, misinformation, or parody has presented a novel challenge, pushing the boundaries of traditional copyright and privacy law. The recent orders and observations from the courts are not merely celebrity-centric victories but are shaping a broader legal framework for digital identity protection that will have far-reaching implications for IP practitioners, media houses, and technology platforms.

---

Delhi High Court Establishes Takedown Protocol in Sudhir Chaudhary Case

In a closely watched development, the Delhi High Court, on October 10, granted an interim injunction protecting the personality rights of Sudhir Chaudhary, the Editor-in-Chief of DD News. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora's order addresses the circulation of AI-generated deepfake videos that used Chaudhary's voice and likeness for commercial purposes without his consent.

“Injunction granted; we will give it for name, image, likeness and voice of Sudhir Chaudhary,” the Court observed, unequivocally affirming the journalist's right to control the use of his identity.

Represented by Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, Chaudhary had approached the court after multiple deepfake videos misrepresenting him surfaced on social media platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Facebook. The court's order goes beyond a simple takedown notice, establishing a clear and structured procedural mechanism. The order mandates that Chaudhary must first notify the original uploaders of the infringing content, with a copy marked to the concerned social media platforms. If the content is not removed by the originator within 48 hours, the onus shifts to the platforms—operated by Meta and Google—to take down the material.

This two-step process is a significant procedural development. It attempts to balance the rights of the individual with the operational realities of social media intermediaries, while also placing initial responsibility on the primary infringers. For legal professionals, this protocol provides a potential template for future takedown requests in similar cases, offering a clearer path to remedy than the often-opaque internal reporting mechanisms of tech giants.

The case, Sudhir Chaudhary v. Meta Platforms & Ors , signals the judiciary's acknowledgement of the tangible harm caused by AI-driven misuse and the urgent need to protect the digital personas of public figures from dilution and misrepresentation.

Bombay High Court Considers Suniel Shetty’s Plea Against Widespread Misuse

Simultaneously, the Bombay High Court heard a similar plea from veteran Bollywood actor Suniel Shetty. Represented by Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf, Shetty sought protection against the rampant unauthorized use of his image by a diverse range of businesses, including real estate agencies, astrology websites, and gambling platforms.

The plea highlighted the extent of the misuse, which included deepfake images showing the actor with his grandchild. Saraf clarified that the relief sought was not a blanket ban on websites but the targeted removal of specific infringing content. Justice Arif Doctor has reserved the order on the plea, the outcome of which is eagerly awaited by the legal and entertainment industries. This case further illustrates that the threat is not confined to sophisticated deepfake videos but also includes the more conventional, yet equally damaging, unauthorized use of static images for false endorsements.

Kumar Sanu Joins Legal Battle to Protect Artistic Identity

The judicial momentum continued as veteran playback singer Kumar Sanu approached the Delhi High Court on October 12, seeking comprehensive protection for his personality and publicity rights. His petition, slated to be heard by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, seeks to restrain the unauthorized commercial use of not only his name, image, and voice but also his distinctive singing style and vocal techniques.

Sanu's plea, filed through advocates Shikha Sachdeva and Sana Raees Khan, explicitly references the threat from AI voice cloning and its use in online content. The petition states, “Such acts also amount to an attempt at false endorsements and passing off and hence, must be restrained by an order of injunction by this court." By invoking a violation of his moral rights under the Copyright Act, Sanu’s suit adds another dimension to the legal arguments, linking the protection of persona to the integrity of an artist's creative work.

This move follows similar legal actions by a growing list of Indian celebrities, including Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor, and Rajinikanth, who have all secured court orders protecting their unique personal attributes from commercial exploitation.

Legal Analysis: The Expanding Contours of Personality Rights in India

Personality rights, which encompass the right of publicity and the right to privacy, are not codified under a single statute in India. They have evolved through a series of judicial pronouncements, drawing from common law principles of passing off, misappropriation, and the constitutional right to privacy.

The current wave of litigation is forcing the courts to address several critical legal questions:

1. Scope of Protection: The courts are progressively expanding the umbrella of protected attributes beyond just name and image to include voice, signature, catchphrases ("jhakaas" in Anil Kapoor's case), and even unique artistic styles. Kumar Sanu's plea to protect his "singing style" could set a new precedent if granted.
2. AI and Intermediary Liability: The 48-hour takedown mechanism in Chaudhary’s case is a crucial step in defining the role of intermediaries. It reflects an attempt to implement a more robust version of the "notice and takedown" regime, making platforms accountable if originators fail to comply.
3. Fair Use vs. Misappropriation: As these rights are strengthened, courts will inevitably have to grapple with the defense of fair use, particularly concerning parody, satire, and commentary. The challenge will be to draw a clear line between permissible transformative use and impermissible commercial exploitation.
4. The Need for Legislation: The flurry of court cases highlights a growing clamor within the legal community for a dedicated legislative framework to govern personality rights and regulate AI-generated content. While judicial activism is filling the gap, a clear statute would provide greater certainty and a more streamlined enforcement mechanism.

The proactive approach of the Indian judiciary provides a crucial bulwark against the misuse of digital identity. For legal practitioners, these developments necessitate a deeper understanding of the interplay between intellectual property, technology law, and constitutional rights. The orders in the cases of Chaudhary, Shetty, and Sanu will not only define the rights of celebrities but will also lay the groundwork for how the law protects the digital identity of every citizen in the age of artificial intelligence.