Back
Vikas Divyakirti Seeks Protection; Transfers Case to Coordinate Bench
In a significant move highlighting the expanding frontier of in India, Dr. Vikas Divyakirti, the founder of the prominent UPSC coaching institute , has approached the seeking legal protection against the misuse of his identity. The case, listed on Thursday before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, was swiftly transferred to a coordinate bench that is already grappling with the broader contours of jurisprudence. This transfer underscores the court's recognition of the systemic nature of digital identity violations and the need for consistent legal standards.
A Growing Legal Frontier: in the Digital Age
, encompassing , and other aspects of personal identity, have become a pressing legal concern in the era of social media, deepfakes, and AI-generated content. Public figures, educators, and celebrities increasingly find their identities exploited without consent, often through fake profiles, misleading advertisements, and manipulated videos. The has emerged as a pivotal forum for such disputes, having issued a series of for a diverse array of individuals.
Dr. Divyakirti’s suit joins this growing docket, specifically alleging three distinct categories of violation. According to counsel appearing for the educator, the suit primarily seeks to address the proliferation of fake profiles that impersonate him on various platforms. Such impersonation not only tarnishes his professional reputation but also potentially misleads students and the public who rely on his guidance for competitive examinations. The exact details of the relief sought and the parties arrayed as defendants remain undisclosed at this preliminary stage, though the inclusion of as a party suggests a focus on social media intermediaries.
The Suit and Its Allegations
While the court did not delve into the merits, the counsel’s submission outlined three specific kinds of violations. The first and most apparent is the creation of entirely fake social media accounts bearing Dr. Divyakirti’s name and likeness. The second involves the unauthorized use of his identity in commercial contexts, such as paid endorsements or misleading promotions. The third category likely pertains to the circulation of AI-generated or manipulated content that misrepresents his views or actions. These types of violations have become increasingly common, as seen in the recent case of journalist Sudhir Chaudhary, who obtained protection against allegedly misleading AI-generated videos.
The suit was placed before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, who immediately noted the pendency of related matters before a coordinate bench. Rather than proceeding with the case independently, the judge directed its transfer to ensure judicial consistency and avoid conflicting orders. The court’s order reads: “Under the aforesaid circumstances, let this matter be also listed before the bench hearing the issue relating to .” The matter is now scheduled to be placed before the roster bench handling disputes on the following Tuesday.
Court’s Direction and Ongoing Jurisprudence
This transfer reflects a deliberate judicial strategy to consolidate the evolving law on . The coordinate bench, whose identity was not specified, has already passed several , including —a form of that allows the plaintiff to take action against unknown infringers. Such orders have been granted to podcaster Raj Shamani, the court observing that he is “a known face in India, especially in the field of content creation.”
The court’s willingness to extend protections to a wide cross-section of public figures—from Bollywood icons like Salman Khan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan to cricketers like Yuvraj Singh and Sunil Gavaskar, and political leaders like Shashi Tharoor and Pawan Kalyan—indicates a broad and inclusive approach. Notably, the court has also protected spiritual figures such as Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Aniruddhacharya, as well as entrepreneurs like Aman Gupta. This diversity suggests that the court does not limit protection to traditional “celebrities” but recognizes the reputational and economic value of any individual in the public eye.
Who Else Has Sought Protection?
The ’s docket on now reads like a who’s who of Indian public life. In addition to the names mentioned above, the court has issued for actors Kajol Devgan, R Madhavan, NTR Junior, Nagarjuna, and Allu Arjun. The list also includes Malayalam superstar Mohanlal, singer Jubin Nautiyal, and film producer Karan Johar. The case of Salman Khan is particularly notable as it is a separate suit currently pending. The court has also protected the of founder Sri Sri Ravi Shankar and Telugu actor Nagarjuna.
This surge in litigation can be attributed to the ease with which digital impersonation can now occur. AI-generated deepfakes, synthetic voice cloning, and automated profile creation have made it nearly impossible for public figures to monitor and control the use of their identity across thousands of online platforms. The court’s proactive approach, often granting without notice to the defendants (), provides swift relief while the larger legal questions are resolved.
Legal Implications for Public Figures
The legal community is closely watching these developments as they shape the contours of in India. Unlike the United States, where the is well-established at the state level, Indian law does not have a specific statute governing . Instead, courts have relied on a combination of , , and the under . The ’s consistent approach—treating as a facet of the —has provided a workable framework, but gaps remain.
One key issue is . Social media platforms often argue that they are mere conduits and not responsible for user-generated content. However, courts have increasingly required platforms to take down infringing content promptly upon receiving a court order. The inclusion of as a defendant in Dr. Divyakirti’s suit indicates that the plaintiff is seeking not only an injunction against the impersonators but also a direction to the platform to remove and prevent the creation of fake profiles.
Another significant concern is the use of AI-generated content. The case of Sudhir Chaudhary, where the court protected his rights against “allegedly misleading and AI-generated videos,” signals that courts are willing to address novel forms of digital identity theft. This could have far-reaching implications for the regulation of deepfakes and synthetic media in India.
The Road Ahead
The transfer of Dr. Divyakirti’s case to the coordinate bench is a procedural step that could expedite the development of a cohesive legal framework. If the bench consolidates multiple cases, it may issue a comprehensive judgment outlining the scope of , the remedies available, and the obligations of digital platforms. Such a judgment would be immensely valuable for legal practitioners advising public figures, content creators, and companies.
For now, Dr. Divyakirti joins a growing cohort of individuals who are no longer willing to tolerate the unauthorized exploitation of their identity. The outcome of his case, along with the pending matters, will likely influence how Indian law addresses the intersection of technology, privacy, and personal brand management. As the court prepares to hear the matter, the legal community awaits a decision that could set the precedent for the digital age.
Conclusion
Vikas Divyakirti’s move to seek protection before the is emblematic of a broader societal shift. As public figures increasingly become targets of digital impersonation, the courts are stepping in to fill the legislative void. The transfer of his case to a coordinate bench ensures that the law develops consistently and thoughtfully. For legal professionals, this case offers a window into the future of litigation—a future where identity is both a valuable asset and a vulnerable target.
