Delhi High Court Grants Interim Injunction Against AI-Generated Deepfake Videos Of Sadguru Shree Aniruddha Bapu
“Sadguru Shree Aniruddha Bapu”, claims to have delivered more than 1,400 religious discourses (Pravachans) since 1995
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte interim injunction to protect the personality and publicity rights of Dr. Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi, a spiritual leader after finding that AI-generated deepfake videos and impersonated content were circulating on social media platforms.
Dr. Joshi, a Mumbai-based rheumatologist, author, and spiritual figure known as “Sadguru Shree Aniruddha Bapu”, claims to have delivered more than 1,400 religious discourses (Pravachans) on ‘bhaktibhav’ since 1995 and has a global standing. According to the plaint, the plaintiff’s identity, his name, voice, image, likeness, and distinctive style of discourse forms an integral part of his personality and publicity rights, which are legally protectable under the law.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela restrained unidentified individuals from creating, publishing, or circulating fabricated videos, voice-cloned audio, or other manipulated content that falsely portrays the plaintiff.
“In the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff has a, prima facie, strong case and having regard to his well-known, popular and well-accepted personality, the balance of convenience is tilted in favour of the plaintiff. In case an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and other directions, as sought, are not passed, irreparable loss and injury which may occasion, may not be compensated in monetary terms. The dent and damage to the image and personality of the plaintiff, prima facie, appears to be real and present”, the Bench observed.
Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao appeared for the plaintiff Dhananjay Rana, CGSC appeared for the defendant.
In the matter, the plaintiff in the suit had alleged that unknown persons were using advanced artificial intelligence tools to generate deepfake videos and manipulated audio-visual material impersonating him. These videos were allegedly circulated on platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter), misleading viewers into believing that the content was authentic or endorsed by the plaintiff. The suit claimed that some videos falsely depicted the plaintiff promoting products or delivering sermons that he never authorized.
It was further argued that the widespread dissemination of such content had already reached thousands and even millions of viewers, posing serious risks to the plaintiff’s reputation and misleading followers who believed the videos to be genuine communications. The plaintiff also expressed concern that some individuals were exploiting his goodwill to drive traffic to monetized channels and promote misleading or dubious offerings.
The Court, therefore, after examining the pleadings and documents, held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in his favour.
The Bench observed that failure to grant immediate protection could result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s reputation and personality rights, which could not be adequately compensated through monetary damages.
Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants and any associated persons from exploiting the plaintiff’s name, voice, image, likeness, or distinctive attributes in any manner including through AI-generated content, deepfakes, voice cloning, or other digital formats, without authorization.
The Court also directed major social media platforms, including Google, Meta Platforms, and X Corp., to remove infringing content and disable similar material within 48 hours of receiving a complaint from the plaintiff.
In addition, the platforms were directed to disclose basic subscriber information, such as names, email addresses, and IP details of accounts responsible for uploading the impugned content so that the plaintiff may take further legal action against the perpetrators.
The matter will now proceed with completion of pleadings and further hearings before the Court.
Cause Title: Dr. Aniruddha Dhairyadhar Joshi Through Power Of Attorney Holder v. John Does Ashok Kumars & Ors. CS(Comm) 178/2026
Appearances:
Plaintiff: Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocate with R. Sudhinder, Ekta Bhasin, Anand Ankit and Harshil, Advocates.
Defendant: Dhananjay Rana, CGSC for UOI, Aditya Gupta, Vani Kaushik, Varun Pathak and Yash Karunakaran, Advocates.