The Delhi High Court has granted significant interim relief to actor and Member of Parliament Kangana Ranaut in a lawsuit focused on the protection of personality and publicity rights. In an order dated October 8, Justice Vikas Mahajan directed Meta Platforms Inc. to identify, remove, and permanently take down infringing content, including AI-generated deepfakes, morphed images, and fabricated statements, within 72 hours of receiving a copy of the order. This development marks a noteworthy advancement in the legal frameworks surrounding digital identity and the misuse of synthetic media in India.

Beyond the immediate removal mandates, the High Court instructed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications to issue formal directions to internet and telecom service providers. These government bodies are required to facilitate the blocking of access to identified infringing websites within the same 72-hour window. The court further mandated that compliance affidavits be filed by the relevant parties within two weeks, ensuring that the interim relief is not merely symbolic but carries clear procedural enforcement.

Judicial Stance on Digital Identity Protections

The court’s reasoning centers on the recognition that a public figure’s stature inherently grants them proprietary rights over their persona. This extends to the exclusive authority to utilize one's image, voice, and name for commercial purposes and to defend against unauthorized exploitation. Justice Mahajan observed that the material placed on record—which included sexually explicit deepfakes and fabricated quotes—presented a prima facie case for the infringement of the plaintiff’s dignity and identity.

In its order, the court emphasized the urgency of the situation, noting that the apprehended harm was immediate and potentially irreparable. The court explicitly stated: “Meta is directed to remove, disable access to, and permanently take down the impugned content identified by the plaintiff, from the platforms operated by them, including but not limited to videos, reels, posts, accounts, or channels which unlawfully use or imitate the plaintiff’s persona within 72 hours of being communicated a copy of this order by the plaintiff.”

This ruling underscores the increasing judicial intolerance for content that masks its artificial nature to deceive the public. Regarding the specific nature of the material, the court noted: “Such content is inherently deceptive and is capable of misleading ordinary viewers into believing the same to be genuine.” By addressing both the sexualized nature of the deepfakes and the fabricated political or social statements, the court reaffirmed that the right to privacy and the protection of reputation are paramount, even in the absence of a final adjudication of the suit.

Strengthening Remedies for Publicity Rights

The legal strategy employed by the plaintiff relied heavily on the argument that her two-decade career in the entertainment industry, coupled with her current political designation as the representative for the Mandi constituency in Himachal Pradesh, created a unique intersection of commercial goodwill and public trust. The suit contended that the proliferation of manipulated audio-visual material not only damaged her professional standing but also violated her fundamental right to dignity.

By targeting both social media platforms and the broader internet ecosystem through state-mandated blocking, the order adopts a robust approach to personality rights. The inclusion of "John Doe" defendants—unidentified persons responsible for creating or disseminating the content—reflects the court's effort to address the fluid nature of online infringement. The court established that the defendants are prohibited from creating, publishing, or hosting any unauthorized exploit of Ranaut’s persona. This restraint encompasses AI-generated content, synthetic media, manipulated video or audio, fabricated speeches, and deceptive impersonations that might suggest an affiliation with the plaintiff.

Notably, the court acknowledged the potential for overbreadth in such injunctions. It provided a mechanism for platforms or accounts that are not primarily infringing but may be inadvertently caught by the blocking order to approach the court for relief. Provided these entities can demonstrate their non-infringing intent through a formal undertaking, the court expressed a willingness to modify the injunction. This highlights a nuanced balance between strictly curbing malicious AI misuse and preserving the legitimate freedom of digital entities.

Procedural Path and Future Compliance

The current order serves as an interim measure and remains in force until the next hearing date. While the court noted that two defendants had voluntarily removed the disputed material upon receiving an advance copy of the suit, the bulk of the content identified in the plaintiff’s documents remains subject to the 72-hour removal mandate. The court has also granted the plaintiff the flexibility to report additional infringing URLs discovered after the initial filing, allowing for their removal without necessitating the filing of a fresh suit.

The litigation is now positioned for further procedural steps. The matter has been listed before the Joint Registrar on December 4, 2026, for the completion of service and the finalization of pleadings. Subsequently, the case is slated to appear before the High Court on February 3, 2027. The upcoming proceedings will likely focus on whether the temporary protection should be extended into a permanent injunction. For now, the directive establishes a firm precedent for public figures seeking rapid legal intervention against the harms of uncontrolled digital manipulation. The focus remains on whether the current 72-hour turnaround will be met with full compliance by the intermediary and government bodies, setting the stage for future developments in the enforcement of personality rights in the era of advanced synthetic media.