Delhi High Court Protects Ajay Devgn’s Personality Rights Against AI Deepfakes, Clarifies On First Availing Remedy Before Social Media Platforms

The Delhi High Court has protected the personality rights of Bollywood actor Ajay Devgn by restraining certain online platforms from using his name, image, voice, etc. through Artificial Intelligence (AI), Deepfakes, Face Morphing, etc.

The Court also clarified that if a person approaches the Court without availing the statutory mechanism provided under The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 (IT Intermediary Rules), the said party may be held to be not entitled to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.

A Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora emphasized, “… before issuing the ex-parte injunction, this Court notes that the AI generated images of the Plaintiff with other female celebrities uploaded by Defendant Nos. 8, 9 10 and 11 as well as anonymous users which as per the Plaintiff are in unsavoury and inappropriate scenarios and in some cases ex facie obscene could have been reported to the concerned social media platform for take down in accordance with The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021 [‘IT Intermediary Rules’], as it is an efficacious remedy provided by the statute to a complainant (such as the Plaintiff) which is not only cost effective but also time sensitive. Some of the posts complained of would have been liable to be actioned as per Rule 3(2) of the IT Intermediary Rules.”

The Bench added that some of the posts which have been complained of date back to June 2025 and it would have been prudent for the Plaintiff to avail the statutory mechanism which mandates the Grievance Officer to take action within 24 hours.

Advocate Pravin Anand appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, while CGSC Nidhi Raman, Advocates Manas Raghuvanshi, Vivek Ayyagari, Rohan Ahuja, and Varun Pathak appeared on behalf of the Defendants.

Brief Facts

A Suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining trademark infringement, passing off, copyright infringement, violation of common law rights, misappropriation of personality/publicity rights, performers’ right along with other ancillary reliefs against the Defendants. The counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Defendants are infringing Plaintiff’s personality and publicity rights by selling unauthorized merchandise bearing his name and image.

It was further submitted that the Defendants and unknown parties are creating AI-generated advertisements, marketing content, and videos that exploit the Plaintiff’s persona for their own commercial gain while depriving him of legitimate economic opportunities. It was also submitted that the Defendants are defaming Plaintiff by impersonating him, creating AI-generated deepfake content, and misusing his identity to host inappropriate as well as pornographic material, each of which unlawfully exploits his persona, causes reputational harm, and misleads the public.

Court’s Observations

The High Court in the above regard, said, “The Plaintiff is a known public figure with a distinguished career of over four decades, during which his name, image, voice and likeness have acquired immense goodwill, distinctiveness and commercial value. His reputation as a nationally celebrated actor, recipient of multiple prestigious awards including the India’s fourth highest civilian honour Padma Shri, his status as a sought-after brand ambassador, and a personality with millions of followers across social media platforms demonstrates the strong public association uniquely tied to his identity and his reputation among the Indian populace not limited to his fans. Additionally, the Plaintiff has also got his personal/stage name and its variations registered as trademark under various classes.”

The Court was of the view that the Plaintiff is a well-known face in India who has gained immense goodwill and reputation over a course of a successful career and has acquired a celebrity status in India.

“Therefore, prima facie, the Plaintiff’s personality traits and/or parts thereof, including the Plaintiff’s name, likeness, voice, and image are protectable elements of the Plaintiff’s personality rights. The Plaintiff is entitled to seek injunction against the use of his personality rights by third parties for selling merchandise for their commercial gains, without his authorisation. The URLs pertaining to Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and John Doe entities fall within this category. In view of the assertions of the Plaintiff, Defendant No. 1 is misrepresenting to the public with respect to its alleged association with the Plaintiff”, it noted.

The Court observed that the Plaintiff is prima facie entitled to protect himself against morphed and distorted content created with the use of AI technology which portrays the Plaintiff in a repugnant manner, subjecting him to humiliation and ridicule.

“The Plaintiff is also prima facie entitled to protect himself against the circulation of morphed pornographic content and AI-generated images portraying him in obscene setting with other celebrities including female celebrities. The posts placed on record pertaining to Defendant Nos. 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and John Doe entities fall within these categories”, it added.

The Court held that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff, and the continuing availability of the infringing content would cause irreparable injury to the Plaintiff and has made out a case for ex-parte ad interim injunction against the infringing Defendants.

“This Court notes that however parties such as the plaintiff are approaching the Court directly without availing the statutory mechanism and are therefore negating the objective of IT Intermediary Rules. The intent of the statutory mechanism is to provide an effective remedial mechanism to the complainant as well as to reduce burden on the judicial system. Moreover, this Court observes that the social media intermediaries appearing in Court proceedings do not object to such complaints for taking down the unsavoury and inappropriate content. Therefore, it is clarified that if henceforth a complainant/plaintiff approaches the Court without availing the statutory mechanism provided under the IT Intermediary Rules, the said party may be held to be not entitled to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, and the Court will direct the party to first avail its remedy under the aforesaid Rules. It is the obligation of the counsel to advise the litigant about this statutory remedy”, it clarified.

Conclusion and Directions

The Court restrained the Defendants from violating the Plaintiff’s personality/publicity rights and/or passing off by utilizing and/or in any manner directly and/or indirectly, using or exploiting or misappropriating the Plaintiff’s (a) name ‘Ajay Devgn’/‘Ajay Devgan’/‘Ajay Veeru Devgn’/‘Ajay Veeru Devgan’; (b) image; (c) voice; (d) and likeness; which are exclusively identifiable with him for any commercial and/or personal gain and/or otherwise by exploiting them in any manner whatsoever without the Plaintiff’s consent and/or authorization, through the use of any technology including but not limited to Artificial Intelligence, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Deepfakes, Face Morphing, and on any mediums and formats including the virtual medium such as websites, Metaverse, social media etc.

“The Defendants will comply with these directions within 72 hours from the receipt of this Order. … This Court also takes note that Defendant No. 13’s platform is a social networking and microblogging platform wherein multiple users are stated to have been engaged in infringing activities under the name of the Plaintiff, without his authorisation, and since the details of such accounts are not in the public domain, Defendant No. 13 has been impleaded as a proforma party for effective implementation of the Court’s orders”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court issued necessary directions and listed the case on April 30, 2026.

Cause Title- Ajay alias Vishal Veeru Devgan v. The Artists Planet & Ors. (Case Number: CS(COMM) 1269/2025 & I.A. 29557/2025)

Appearance:

Plaintiff: Advocates Pravin Anand, Ameet Naik, Madhu Gadodia, Dhruv Anand, Abhishek Kale, Udita Patro, Nimrat Singh, Dhananjay Khanna, Unnati Gambani, and Pranav Nair.

Defendants: CGSC Nidhi Raman, Advocates Manas Raghuvanshi, Vivek Ayyagari, Rohan Ahuja, Varun Pathak, Misthi Dubey, Mamta Rani Jha, Shruttima Ehersha, Yash Karunakaran, Mritunjoy Roy, Om Ram, and Mayank Sansanwal.

Click here to read/download the Judgment