Introduction

Without a question, one of the 21st century's most revolutionary technologies is artificial intelligence (AI). AI is a force multiplier in many fields, from improving education and expediting legal research to automating industries and transforming healthcare. However, there is also a chance that this same technology may cause great harm. Deepfakes, or artificial intelligence (AI)-generated media that accurately replicate a person's voice, face, and behaviour, are increasingly being used to propagate false information, commit fraud, and impersonate public personalities.
An important precedent in combating this digital threat is the Delhi High Court's recent intervention to shield spiritual leader Sadhguru from the exploitation of his persona through deepfake videos. Our legal systems must adapt to the increasing power of AI, especially those that protect people's identity and dignity, such as personality rights.

Personality Rights in India: An Evolving Jurisprudence

A person's right to manage the commercial and public use of their name, likeness, voice, signature, and distinguishing characteristics is known as their personality rights. Although these rights are not expressly stated in Indian law, courts have long acknowledged that they are derived from Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, including the rights to autonomy, privacy, and dignity.
Through significant rulings over the years, Indian courts have established a solid basis for defending personality rights, particularly in the era of social media and digital content.

1. D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors. MANU/DE/2043/2010
   In this case, the Delhi High Court protected the personality rights of Punjabi singer Daler Mehndi, ruling that the unauthorised sale of dolls resembling his persona constituted a violation of his publicity rights. The court emphasised that public figures have an exclusive right to market their personality.
2. Titan Industries v. Ramkumar Jewellers 2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del)
   The Delhi High Court held that the use of photographs of famous actors Amitabh Bachchan and Jaya Bachchan without permission in an advertisement amounted to false endorsement and misappropriation of personality rights. The court underlined that such misuse could mislead consumers and exploit the goodwill associated with celebrities.
3. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Others CS (COMM) 652/2023
   In a significant decision, the Delhi High Court granted Anil Kapoor protection against the unauthorized use of his image, voice, and catchphrases, especially those deepfaked using AI tools. The court recognized that his distinct style and expressions had an intrinsic value that could not be commercially exploited without consent.
4. Arijit Singh vs Codible Ventures LLP, COM IPR SUIT (L) NO.23443 OF 2024
   Singer Arijit Singh obtained an injunction against voice cloning and AI-generated videos falsely representing him endorsing products. The court observed that the mimicry of an artist’s voice for commercial purposes—especially without authorisation, was both a privacy violation and an intellectual property infringement.

The Sadhguru Case: Delhi High Court’s “Dynamic+” Injunction

In the landmark case of Isha Foundation & Sadhguru v. Unknown, the Delhi High Court issued what it called a "dynamic+" injunction in June 2025. The purpose of this legal remedy was to confront the changing nature of AI concerns, including synthetic media and deepfake content.
A number of websites, YouTube channels, and social media pages were prohibited by the court from using Sadhguru's name, voice, picture, clothing, speech patterns, and style without authorisation. Videos of Sadhguru making false claims, pushing financial frauds, showing up in fictitious arrest scenes, and advertising health items on websites like Amazon were among the content in question.

The court's judgement has several highlights:  

·       A "dynamic+" injunction that prevents re-litigation by applying to both identified offenders and future infractions.

·       Instructions for websites like YouTube, X (previously Twitter), and ISPs to remove the illegal content and reveal the perpetrators.

·       A defence of individual rights in the digital sphere, especially against AI-generated false information that has the potential to go viral and instantly harm people's reputations.

The court noted that when AI amplifies this kind of identity misuse, it "spreads like wildfire" and presents risks akin to a "digital pandemic."

To know more about this you can follow the link below:

Deepfakes and the Legal Void: Why Stronger Protections Are Urgent

Deepfakes are advanced deception tools, not merely new technology advancements. These artificial intelligence-generated media can:

·       Inaccurately portray persons promoting goods or services by mimicking a person's voice, face, and body language.

·       Produce fake news and political disinformation.

·       Cause serious emotional pain, harm to one's reputation, and financial harm by manipulating financial markets with false video announcements.

Despite the dangers, deepfakes are not specifically covered under Indian law. While they offer certain remedies, the Information Technology Act of 2000 and the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules of 2021 do not fully address AI-based impersonation. Courts have filled this gap, frequently using a mix of copyright protections, defamation laws, privacy laws, and judicial innovation, like dynamic injunctions.

The Role of Intermediaries and Platforms

Intermediary responsibility is changing as a result of courts placing more and more obligations on digital platforms. There is currently pressure on companies like Meta, Google, and X to implement:

·       Tools for proactive deepfake identification.

·       Quicker takedown processes (24–36 hours).

·       Traceability tools to find uploaders.

·       Frameworks for open reporting and redress.

In response to AI-generated impersonation, platforms are expected to take proactive measures to protect both users and public personalities, as the Sadhguru ruling makes evident.

Conclusion

An important turning point in Indian digital law was reached when the Delhi High Court recognised the danger posed by AI-generated impersonations and vigorously defended individual rights. It draws attention to the pressing necessity to strike a balance between technical innovation and personal freedom and reputation.

The judiciary has taken the lead in creating remedies like dynamic+ injunctions in the lack of a specific law against deepfakes or AI impersonation. Legislative action is now crucial, though. India should think about passing explicit laws that define and punish the misuse of deepfakes, specify the extent of personality rights, and hold online intermediaries accountable. Once restricted to endorsement deals and superstars, personality rights are now essential components of digital selfhood. As AI continues to blur the line between reality and fabrication, protecting the integrity of one’s identity, both physical and virtual, has never been more essential.

Author - Bhavpreet Singh Soni

Co Author - Diksha Modi