Suniel Shetty Seeks Personality Rights Protection in Bombay High Court, Citing Widespread Digital Misuse and Deepfakes

Mumbai, India – Veteran Bollywood actor Suniel Shetty has joined a growing list of Indian celebrities turning to the judiciary to protect their identities in the digital age. In a suit filed before the Bombay High Court, Shetty is seeking a broad injunction to safeguard his "personality rights" against rampant and unauthorized use of his name, image, and likeness across various online platforms, including commercial websites and social media.

The case, heard by Justice Arif S. Doctor, highlights the escalating conflict between personal identity and the unregulated proliferation of artificial intelligence technologies. Represented by Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf, Shetty’s legal team presented a compelling picture of the multifaceted misuse the actor faces, prompting the court to reserve its order on the plea for ex parte ad interim relief.

The Scope of Infringement: From Commercial Exploitation to Malicious Deepfakes

At the heart of Shetty's petition is the unauthorized commercial exploitation of his persona. Saraf detailed to the court how numerous entities are leveraging the actor's considerable public recognition for financial gain without consent or association. The alleged infringements are extensive and varied:

• Unauthorized Endorsements: Shetty's image is reportedly being used by real estate agencies, astrology services, and even gambling websites to promote their businesses, creating a false impression of endorsement.
• Unlicensed Merchandise: The suit claims that merchandise, including posters and other items featuring the actor's face, is being sold without authorization.
• Impersonation: The court was informed of fake social media accounts created in Shetty's name and the existence of fraudulent agents claiming to represent him for brand endorsements.

However, the petition moves beyond traditional "passing off" claims into the more perilous territory of AI-generated content. Saraf submitted that deepfake technology has been used to create fabricated images and videos of the actor. A particularly disturbing example cited was a deepfake photograph depicting Shetty with his grandchild.

“There are deepfake photographs and videos circulating, some showing him with his grandchild,” Saraf told the court. “Real estate and astrology websites are using his image. A gambling website has also featured him. None of this is with his permission.”

This submission underscores the dual threat faced by public figures: not only the unauthorized commercialization of their identity but also the malicious fabrication of content that can cause significant reputational and personal harm. Saraf also noted that in some instances, platforms like Meta had merely labeled such content as deepfake without taking the crucial step of removing it, raising questions about intermediary liability and the efficacy of current content moderation policies.

The Court's Response and the Request for a John Doe Order

Justice Arif S. Doctor acknowledged the gravity of the technological threat, remarking on the dangers of unregulated AI. “This AI and social media… if not regulated, it's scary what people can do with it,” he observed during the hearing.

In response, Saraf referenced the recent viral deepfake video of the Chief Justice of India, illustrating that even the highest echelons of the judiciary are not immune to such digital manipulation. “Even I believed it was real for two days before learning it was fake,” he admitted, highlighting the sophistication and deceptive power of the technology.

To combat the anonymous and often untraceable nature of online infringers, Shetty's petition includes a prayer for a "John Doe" order. This type of injunction, also known as an "Ashok Kumar" order in Indian jurisprudence, is a crucial tool in intellectual property and online defamation cases. It allows a plaintiff to take action against unknown defendants, enabling orders to be served on internet service providers, domain registrars, and social media platforms to block or take down infringing content hosted by anonymous entities.

Shetty's counsel, a team from Parinam Law Associates, clarified that the relief sought is not a blanket ban on entire websites but is targeted specifically at the removal of the infringing content. Justice Doctor has reserved the order on the interim application.

A Growing Jurisprudence on Personality Rights

Suniel Shetty's case is the latest in a significant trend of celebrities seeking judicial intervention to protect their personas. Indian courts, particularly the Delhi High Court, have been progressively building a robust jurisprudence around personality and publicity rights, recognizing them as an essential facet of an individual's right to privacy and property.

Recent landmark orders have provided similar relief to a host of public figures:

• Amitabh Bachchan (2022): The Delhi High Court passed a sweeping order restraining the public at large from infringing his personality rights.
• Anil Kapoor (2023): The court protected not only the actor's name and likeness but also unique attributes like his "jhakaas" catchphrase from commercial misuse.
• Aishwarya Rai & Abhishek Bachchan: The court granted relief against the misuse of their images and voices in AI-generated content.
• Karan Johar: The filmmaker secured an order preventing the unauthorized use of his persona through deepfakes, morphing, and other digital manipulations.

The Bombay High Court has also recently contributed to this area of law. In a case concerning veteran singer Asha Bhosle, the court restrained entities from misusing her personal attributes, explicitly stating that making AI tools available to replicate a celebrity’s voice without consent constitutes a violation of their identity rights.

Shetty’s suit before the Bombay High Court will serve as another important test case, further solidifying the legal framework for protecting personal identity against the multifaceted challenges of the digital era. The eventual order is anticipated to provide critical guidance on the judiciary's approach to tackling deepfakes and enforcing personality rights against a decentralized and often anonymous internet landscape.