Personality Rights Infringement via Deepfakes and Digital Misuse

Summary

This post analyses the Bombay High Court decision in Suniel Shetty vs John Doe Ashok Kumar, which dealt with personality rights infringement via deepfakes and digital misuse. The Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction to prevent unauthorised use of the plaintiff's name, image, and other personal attributes. It examined the enforceability of celebrity personality rights, the impact of AI-generated content, and intermediary obligations under Indian law. The judgement highlights the court’s structured approach in granting relief to protect privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The case establishes significant legal principles for digital misuse and protection of celebrity rights in India.

Summary

In the case of Suniel Shetty vs John Doe Ashok Kumar, the Bombay High Court granted an ex-parte interim injunction restraining several known and unknown parties from unauthorised use of his name, image, voice, and other attributes of his personality. As per the Court, the unauthorised creation/uploading of deepfake images not only is an infringement of personality rights but also to the right to live with dignity.

Background

The plaintiff, Suniel Shetty, a prominent Indian film actor and public figure, filed a commercial suit seeking protection of his personality rights, his right to privacy and right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 Constitution of India and also for the protection of his moral rights under Copyright Act, 1957. It was also asserted that his stated rights are being infringed and violated by unauthorized use and commercial exploitation and misrepresentation on different social media platforms and over the internet by various parties.

Questions before the court

• • Whether the plaintiff, as a celebrity possesses an enforceable right of personality over his name, his signature, his image and his likeness, his voice and tone, his distinctive performance and mannerisms and similar other attributes?
  • Whether any unauthorised use, publication, or AI-generated replication of the plaintiff’s persona and that of his family members amounts to violation of his right to live with dignity and right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?
  • Can AI-generated deepfakes and impersonation content constitute infringement and passing off?
  • Can Online and intermediary platforms be directed to take down infringing content and disclose user information?
  • Is it appropriate to grant an ex-parte interim injunction against both identified and anonymous (John Doe) defendants?

Contentions by the plaintiff

• • The Plaintiff enjoys significant fame and goodwill across India and internationally, with a large fan base and digital presence.
  • His name, image, voice, and persona have a distinct commercial value.
  • The misuse by the Defendants was misleading, damaging, and done without consent.
  • Use of AI tools to generate deepfake videos, impersonating content, and promotions was a clear infringement of his personality rights and his right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
  • The misuse amounted to passing off and unjust enrichment at the expense of his reputation.
  • Intermediary platforms were under obligations to take down infringing content under Rule 3(1) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
  • Immediate ex-parte relief was necessary to prevent further harm and concealment of evidence.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

• • The Court observed that the present case was a combination of a depraved mind and the misuse of technology resultantly causing harm to the Plaintiff’s personality rights.
  • It was further observed that the unauthorized creation/uploading of deepfake images of the Plaintiff on social media platforms constitutes a grave infringement not only of his personality rights but also of his right to live with dignity.
  • Equally, the unauthorized use of AI generated images of the Plaintiff and his family members constitutes a blatant invasion of their privacy and their fundamental rights.
  • Given the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable harm, the Court held ex-parte interim relief appropriate.
  • In light of the above, the Court granted ex-parte interim relief against Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 13, 15, and 18.
  • Further, it directed Meta platform as well as X Corp to remove access to all pages/content identified as infringing content, and further directed that in the event the Plaintiff notifies them in writing of any further infringing pages/content of a similar nature appearing on their platforms/websites, the same shall also be removed/taken down.

Relevant paragraphs:

Para 14: “the same can best be described as a lethal combination of a depraved mind and the misuse of technology resultantly causing harm to the Plaintiff’s personality rights”.
Para 14 contd.: “The unauthorized creation/uploading of deepfake images of the Plaintiff on social media platforms constitutes a grave infringement not only of his personality rights but also of his right to live with dignity. Equally, the unauthorized use of AI generated images of the Plaintiff and his family members constitutes a blatant invasion of their privacy and their fundamental rights. The personality rights of an individual encompass the right to control, protect, and commercially exploit one’s own image, name, likeness, and other identifiable attributes”.

Para 17: “This Court is therefore of the view that the Plaintiff has made out a strong case for the grant of ad interim relief. The balance of convenience is also entirely in favour of the Plaintiff, and if the ad-interim reliefs are not granted, the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury and harm”.

Case Citation: Suniel V Shetty vs John Doe S Ashok Kumar S, COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 32130 OF 2025, on 10 October, 2025. Available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126455342/.

Authored by Mr. Karthik K. G.