In short. If your name, photograph, voice or likeness is being used without consent, in a deepfake video, a fake investment ad, an AI voice clone, merchandise or a fake profile, the Delhi High Court can order the misuse stopped, the content taken down by platforms and the people behind it identified. Interim orders often come at the first hearing. The law protects public figures most strongly, but professionals and private individuals have remedies too. Start by saving the links and screenshots with dates, then report the content to the platform.
Is this your situation?
- A deepfake video shows you saying or doing something you never said or did.
- Your face or name is being used in online ads for trading apps, health products or betting sites.
- An AI tool or app is offering a clone of your voice, or a chatbot pretends to be you.
- T-shirts, posters, stickers or mugs with your photo or catchphrase are being sold without permission.
- Morphed or intimate images of you are circulating on social media or messaging groups.
- A fake profile or page in your name is collecting money or messaging your contacts.
- A doctor, lawyer, chartered accountant or other professional finds a fake channel using their identity to sell advice or products.
What personality rights protect, and who can use them
Personality rights are a person's right to control the commercial and personal use of their identity: name, photograph, likeness, voice, signature, distinctive mannerisms and, for some, a well known catchphrase. India has no single statute on the subject. The right has been built by courts, mainly the Delhi High Court, from the right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, the law of passing off, and provisions of the Trade Marks Act and the Copyright Act.
The right has two faces. The publicity side stops others from making money out of your identity without permission, such as a brand implying you endorse it. The privacy and dignity side stops uses that degrade or misrepresent you, such as morphed obscene images or a deepfake putting false words in your mouth. Film actors, singers and sports stars have brought most of the reported cases, but the principles are not limited to them. A doctor whose face appears in a fake ad for diabetes pills, a finance influencer cloned to promote a fraud scheme, or a private woman whose photos are morphed all have remedies, though the legal basis and the strength of the claim vary.
For deepfakes in particular, the court's power to act fast is the main protection. Content spreads in hours. A suit that gets an order against the uploaders, unknown persons and the platforms at the first hearing can stop much of the damage, and later applications can extend the order to new uploads.
How the Delhi High Court has built this right
In D.M. Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2010), the Delhi High Court restrained sellers of dolls modelled on the singer Daler Mehndi, recognising that a celebrity's persona has commercial value that others cannot exploit without consent. Titan Industries v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012) followed, involving the unauthorised use of a celebrity couple's images from a jewellery advertisement.
The modern line began with Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022), where the court granted a wide injunction against use of the actor's name, voice, image and attributes across merchandise, websites and apps. In Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2023) the court specifically covered AI tools, deepfakes, face morphing and the actor's catchphrase. Jackie Shroff's case in 2024 extended protection to his nickname and voice, including against AI chatbots. Through 2025 and 2026 a series of actors, singers, sports persons, spiritual leaders and media personalities obtained similar orders, many aimed squarely at deepfake videos and AI voice clones circulating on video platforms.
The court has also drawn limits. In Digital Collectibles Pte Ltd v. Galactus Funware Technology (2023), it held that using information about public figures that is already in the public domain, such as cricketers' names and statistics in a game, is not automatically a violation, and that free speech, news, parody and satire remain protected. That balance runs through every order: the court stops commercial exploitation and harmful falsehoods, not commentary.
The legal basis for a personality rights claim
Article 21: privacy and dignity
The Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). Courts draw on that recognition, and on the right to live with dignity, when protecting individuals against unauthorised and degrading uses of their identity. Fundamental rights bind the State directly; against private parties they are enforced through civil suits and court orders rather than writs in most cases.
Trade Marks Act 1999 and passing off
Where a person's name or image has commercial goodwill, its use to suggest endorsement is passing off. Many public figures also register their names as trademarks, which allows a statutory infringement claim. The jurisdiction rule in Section 134 lets a registered owner sue where they reside or carry on business.
Copyright Act 1957
Photographs, videos and recordings used to make deepfakes are often copyright works owned by the person, a studio or a photographer. Performers have rights in their performances under Sections 38 and 38A, and authors have moral rights under Section 57 against distortion of their work. These give additional and sometimes simpler grounds for takedown.
Information Technology Act 2000 and IT Rules 2021
Section 66C (identity theft), Section 66D (cheating by personation using a computer) and Section 66E (violation of privacy) are offences, as are Sections 67 and 67A for obscene and sexually explicit material. Platforms keep their safe harbour under Section 79 only if they follow the due diligence rules. Amendments notified in February 2026 require labelling of AI-generated content and sharply shortened takedown times, so check the current timelines when you complain.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023
Defamation is covered by Section 356 BNS (old Sections 499 and 500 IPC), cheating by personation by Section 319 BNS (old Section 419 IPC), and stalking and voyeurism by Sections 78 and 77 BNS (old Sections 354D and 354C IPC). These support a police complaint alongside the civil suit.
Deepfakes, voice clones and AI tools: what the orders cover
Recent Delhi High Court orders in personality rights suits commonly restrain the defendants, including unknown persons, from using the plaintiff's name, image, voice and likeness through any technology, expressly including artificial intelligence, machine learning, deepfakes, face morphing and voice cloning. They direct video platforms and social networks to take down specified URLs, and allow the plaintiff to notify further URLs that the platform must act on within a set time. Domain registrars are told to suspend domains using the plaintiff's name, and the Department of Telecommunications and MeitY are asked to issue blocking directions for websites that cannot otherwise be reached.
The uses typically targeted are: deepfake videos placing the person in fake endorsements or obscene content; AI voice models trained on a singer's recordings and offered to the public; chatbots that impersonate the person; GIFs, stickers and ringtones using a catchphrase; merchandise; and fake profiles collecting money. The Bombay High Court has issued similar orders, including on AI voice cloning of a well known playback singer in 2024.
Platforms are also usually directed to disclose subscriber and account details of the uploaders. That disclosure is what turns an anonymous channel into a defendant who can be held liable for damages or referred to the police. Our page on copyright piracy and website blocking explains how similar dynamic orders work against piracy sites, and the same mechanics apply here.
Faster routes to try before, or alongside, court
Every large platform has a reporting route for impersonation, non-consensual intimate images and manipulated media, and the IT Rules require each to have a Grievance Officer in India. Report the content through the platform's form first, choosing the specific category (impersonation, intimate imagery, synthetic media) rather than a general complaint, and keep the complaint number. Under the IT Rules, content showing a person's private areas, nudity or sexual acts, or impersonating a person through morphed images, must be removed within a short fixed time of a complaint from the person concerned, and the February 2026 amendments shortened that window further.
If the platform does not act, the Grievance Appellate Committee set up under the IT Rules can be approached. For crimes such as sextortion, morphed images or financial fraud using your identity, report at once on the national cybercrime portal or helpline 1930 and to the cyber police station of your district. A police complaint creates a record and can lead to an FIR; if the police sit on it, remedies are set out on our page on Delhi Police not acting on your complaint.
These routes work well for single items and for private individuals. They are slow and patchy against coordinated campaigns, against hundreds of ads run by fraud networks, or against apps and websites that ignore notices. That is when a civil suit with a broad interim order becomes necessary.
Which court hears it, and why Delhi
Personality rights suits by public figures are usually filed on the original side of the Delhi High Court, often as commercial suits because they involve passing off and trademark claims, and are listed before the Intellectual Property Division. That requires a valuation above the pecuniary limit, which is Rs 2 crore at present; a proposal to raise it is pending, so check the current limit. A smaller, non-commercial privacy claim by a private individual can be filed in the district court with territorial jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction in Delhi is usually founded on the content being accessible and causing harm in Delhi, on the plaintiff residing or working here, and, for registered marks or copyright, on Sections 134 and 62 which allow suit where the plaintiff resides or carries on business. The Delhi High Court has built up settled formats for these suits and for orders against platforms, which is a large part of why plaintiffs from Mumbai, Chennai and Hyderabad file here.
Writ petitions under Article 226 are the right tool only in narrow cases, such as where a government authority fails to act on a blocking request or where systemic directions are needed. The Delhi High Court has, in a 2023 case brought by a woman whose intimate images kept resurfacing, issued directions to search engines and the police on non-consensual intimate imagery. For an ordinary dispute against a private uploader, the civil suit remains the main remedy, as explained on our page on writ petitions against the government.
Step by step: a personality rights or deepfake suit
Preserve the evidence
Save each URL, take screenshots and screen recordings showing the date, time, account name and view counts, and download copies where lawful. Note where you first saw it and who sent it to you. Do this before reporting, because content sometimes disappears and reappears elsewhere.
Report to the platform and the police where needed
Use the platform's specific reporting category and keep the complaint numbers. For sexual content, extortion or fraud, file on the cybercrime portal or at the cyber police station. These steps also show the court you tried quicker remedies.
Map the misuse
List every infringing item by category: deepfake videos, ads, merchandise listings, domains, apps, chatbots and fake profiles. Identify the platforms, registrars and sellers involved. The court needs a clear schedule of URLs.
Prove your persona
Collect material showing your name and image are recognised: your work, media coverage, social media following, endorsement contracts, trademark registrations and awards. For a professional, collect evidence of practice and reputation. This establishes the goodwill and the harm.
File the suit with interim application
The plaint seeks permanent injunction, takedown, disclosure and damages, with an application for an ex parte interim injunction under Order 39 CPC. Defendants include known uploaders, unknown persons, platforms, registrars, DoT and MeitY. The electronic evidence certificate under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 (old Section 65B, Evidence Act) is filed with the screenshots.
First hearing and interim order
If the misuse is clear, the court can pass an interim order on the first day restraining the misuse, directing takedown within a set time and allowing further URLs to be notified. Platforms are asked to disclose uploader details, usually in a sealed cover.
Compliance, new URLs and identified defendants
Platforms take down and file compliance affidavits. As new content appears, it is notified or brought to court by application. Identified uploaders are added as defendants and served.
Final decree
Where defendants do not contest, the plaintiff seeks a decree, sometimes by summary judgment in a commercial suit. Contested cases go to evidence. The decree makes the injunction permanent and may award damages and costs.
Time and cost at each stage (typical ranges, not promises)
| Stage | Typical time | Court fee and expenses (general) |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence capture and platform reports | One to five days | No court fee; investigator costs if used |
| Drafting and filing the suit | One to two weeks once papers are ready; faster in an emergency | Ad valorem court fee on the valuation; check the current court fee |
| First hearing and interim order | Often within days of filing when urgency is shown | Process fee |
| Takedown by platforms | Usually within the time fixed in the order, often hours to a few days | Nominal |
| Notifying further URLs | Ongoing, as new content appears | Nominal or small application fees |
| Disclosure and adding defendants | One to four months | Nominal |
| Decree against non-contesting defendants | Around six months to a year or more | Nominal; costs may be awarded |
| Contested trial | Two years or more | Commissioner fees if evidence is recorded |
Our professional fees are discussed at the first meeting and agreed in writing, stage by stage. A suit aimed at a handful of uploaders costs much less than one against a large network of ads, apps and domains.
Documents and evidence to collect
Evidence of the misuse
- List of URLs with dates and times seen
- Screenshots and screen recordings showing the account name and content
- Copies of ads, listings and app pages
- Messages sent to you or your contacts by impersonators
- Payment details where people were defrauded
Evidence of your identity and reputation
- Proof of identity and, for public figures, a profile of work and recognition
- Media articles, interviews and social media follower figures
- Endorsement agreements showing the commercial value of your image
- Trademark registrations of your name, if any
- Original photographs or recordings used to make the fake, with ownership details
Complaints already made
- Platform complaint numbers and replies
- Cybercrime portal acknowledgement or police complaint
- Legal notices sent and responses
- Grievance Appellate Committee filings, if any
Filing papers
- Vakalatnama and Aadhaar or passport copy
- Authority letter if a manager or company files on your behalf
- Section 63 BSA certificate for electronic evidence
- Affidavit of the person who captured the evidence
What the court will not stop
Personality rights do not give anyone control over everything said or shown about them. News reports, reviews, criticism, satire, parody, caricature, biographies, academic work and art are protected expression. A meme mocking a politician's speech, a stand-up routine imitating an actor, or a news channel using a sportsperson's photograph to report a match will generally not be stopped. The court asks whether the use is commercial exploitation, whether it creates a false impression of endorsement, and whether it degrades or misrepresents the person.
Public figures are also expected to tolerate more scrutiny than private persons. A business leader cannot use personality rights to remove an unflattering but accurate article; that is a matter, if at all, for defamation, which has its own defences such as truth and fair comment. Our page on civil defamation suits and takedown of defamatory content covers that route.
Courts have also refused or narrowed relief where the plaintiff tried to restrain a whole category of lawful activity, or where the claimed persona was not distinctive enough to be recognised. Ask for what you need: specific uses, specific content and the people behind it. Over-broad prayers slow the case down. When Advocate B.K. Singh drafts the reliefs in such a suit, he ties each prayer to a category of misuse actually found in the evidence, so that the judge can see exactly what is being stopped and why.
Private individuals: morphed photos, fake profiles and intimate images
Most deepfake victims are not celebrities. Women in particular face morphed images, fake profiles and intimate images shared without consent, often by former partners or by extortion gangs. For them the first steps are reporting to the platform under the intimate imagery or impersonation category and filing a cybercrime complaint, because the offences under Sections 66E, 67 and 67A of the IT Act and the stalking, voyeurism and defamation provisions of the BNS apply directly.
A civil suit is available too, founded on privacy and dignity, and the court can permit the plaintiff's identity to be masked in the cause title and orders. Directions can go to platforms and search engines to remove and de-index the content and to prevent re-uploads where technically feasible. Where the problem is a criminal case being registered against the victim, or a counter FIR, the remedies on our page on cyber crime cases at the Delhi High Court may be needed.
When Advocate B.K. Singh meets a client in this situation, the first thing he does is fix the evidence and the complaint numbers in one document, because the person is usually too distressed to remember what was reported where, and the court and police will both ask. Please do not pay an extortionist. Payment rarely ends the demands.
Professionals and businesses: fake ads and cloned identities
A growing set of cases involves fraud networks running ads with deepfaked doctors, news anchors, business leaders or finance commentators recommending trading apps, investment schemes or health products. Victims who lose money then blame the person whose face they saw. For the professional, the harm is both reputational and legal, because complaints and even police notices can follow.
The response combines several tools. A public notice on your own channels saying you endorse no such product helps limit damage. A suit with an interim order against the advertisers, unknown persons and the ad platforms, with disclosure directions, deals with the source. Where a company's name or logo is also misused, as with fake customer care numbers or fake job offers, a trademark claim is joined, explained on our page on trademark infringement and passing off suits, and fake domains are dealt with as domain name disputes.
Keep records of every complaint you receive from someone who was defrauded. They prove the confusion that the ad caused, and they protect you if anyone later suggests you were part of the scheme. If a criminal defamation complaint is filed against you over your own public warning, see criminal defamation complaints.
After the order: compliance, contempt and damages
An interim order is only as good as its enforcement. Platforms generally comply with Delhi High Court takedown orders, but new uploads keep appearing. The order should therefore include a mechanism for notifying further URLs directly to platforms, with a time for compliance, and liberty to apply for extension. Someone on your side has to monitor and keep notifying; this is routine work, not a one-time event.
A defendant who continues after being served with the order is in contempt, and the court can punish breach of an injunction under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, including attachment of property and detention. Identified defendants who appear often settle by giving undertakings, deleting content and paying costs. Where they do not, damages can be claimed, and the court has awarded costs against defendants who stayed away.
Damages for personality rights violations are assessed on the evidence: the value of an endorsement that was taken without payment, the defendant's profits, and harm to reputation. Keep your endorsement contracts and fee records ready; they are the best measure of what the misuse was worth.
Mistakes people make with deepfakes and identity misuse
- Reporting before saving. Once a platform removes content, proof can vanish. Capture first, then report.
- Engaging with the uploader. Arguing in the comments or messaging an extortionist spreads the content and can make matters worse.
- Asking for too much. Prayers that try to stop all mention of you, including news and satire, slow the case and invite refusal.
- No proof of reputation. A professional who cannot show their standing and audience will find it harder to prove harm and confusion.
- Treating the order as the end. Without monitoring and notifying new URLs, misuse returns within weeks.
- Ignoring the criminal side. Sextortion and fraud need a police complaint, both for investigation and to protect you.
A made-up example: a cardiologist in a fake medicine ad
Here's a made-up example. A cardiologist in Rajouri Garden with a popular health channel finds a video circulating on social media in which he appears to recommend a herbal capsule that 'cures blockages without surgery'. The voice is his, cloned from his videos. Within a week, his clinic receives calls from patients who bought the capsules, and one patient's son threatens a police complaint.
His staff record forty-two ads and posts with dates and URLs, three websites selling the product with his photo, and a WhatsApp number that sends his deepfake video to anyone who enquires. He reports the ads to the platform under the impersonation and manipulated media categories and files a cybercrime complaint. He posts a short warning on his channel saying he has no link with the product.
Most ads come down, but new ones appear daily. A suit is filed in the Delhi High Court against the website operators, unknown persons, the ad platforms and video platform, the domain registrars, DoT and MeitY. At the first hearing the court grants an interim injunction restraining use of his name, image and voice, directs takedown of the listed URLs within a fixed time, permits further URLs to be notified, and directs the platforms to disclose the advertisers' account details.
Disclosure leads to a marketing agency in another state, which is added as a defendant. The agency appears and settles with undertakings and costs. The websites never appear, and the doctor later seeks a decree against them. Every detail here is invented, and results in a real case depend on its own facts.
What to do this week
- Save URLs, screenshots and screen recordings of every misuse, with dates.
- Report each item to the platform under the most specific category, and note complaint numbers.
- File a cybercrime complaint if there is extortion, sexual content or money fraud.
- Post a short, factual public notice on your own channels if the public is being misled.
- Collect proof of your reputation and any endorsement contracts.
- Do not pay or bargain with anyone demanding money to remove content.
Getting advice on misuse of your identity
Personality rights law in India is moving quickly, with new orders on AI tools, voice clones and platform duties appearing every few months. Our guide on protecting your name and image from deepfakes gives a shorter overview, and the guide on ex parte injunctions explains how orders are passed before the other side is heard.
For advice on your own case, or for an update on the latest Delhi High Court orders on deepfakes and AI misuse, contact Advocate B.K. Singh.
Frequently asked questions
Can I get a deepfake video of me removed in India?
Yes. Report it to the platform under the impersonation or manipulated media category, file a cybercrime complaint where there is sexual content, fraud or extortion, and if needed file a suit in the Delhi High Court for an injunction and takedown order. Courts have granted such orders at the first hearing.
Do personality rights apply only to celebrities?
The strongest commercial protection goes to people whose identity has recognised value, but privacy and dignity protect everyone. Private individuals can obtain takedown and injunction orders against morphed images, fake profiles and intimate image abuse. The legal basis differs, but the remedy exists.
Is it illegal to use a celebrity's photo in an advertisement without permission?
Using a well known person's photo or name to suggest they endorse a product, without their consent, is generally passing off and a violation of their personality rights. The Delhi High Court has repeatedly restrained such use and ordered takedowns.
Can I stop an AI app from cloning my voice?
Delhi and Bombay High Court orders have restrained AI tools and platforms from cloning a person's voice and offering it to users without consent. A suit can seek an injunction against the app, takedown of the voice model and disclosure of who runs it.
Can memes and parody of me be removed through personality rights?
Usually not. Satire, parody, news and commentary are protected expression, and courts protect them even in personality rights cases. Relief is granted against commercial exploitation, false endorsement and degrading or obscene misuse, not against fair commentary.
How quickly must a social media platform remove morphed intimate images?
The IT Rules require platforms to remove content showing a person's private areas, nudity or sexual acts, or impersonating them through morphed images, within a short fixed time after the person complains, and the February 2026 amendments shortened that window. Check the current timeline, report under the specific category and keep the complaint number.
Can I find out who made a fake profile or deepfake of me?
The court can direct platforms and registrars to disclose the account and subscriber details of the uploader, usually in a sealed cover. The police can also obtain these details during investigation of a cybercrime complaint.
Can I claim damages for misuse of my name or image?
Yes. Damages can be claimed in a civil suit and are assessed on evidence such as the value of an endorsement taken without payment, the defendant's profits and harm to your reputation. Courts have also awarded costs against defendants who stayed away.