New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed online intermediaries to take down or disable access to identified URLs containing content that allegedly impersonates actor Kriti Sanon, including sexually explicit deepfakes, morphed images and other objectionable material. The Court also made significant prima facie observations on the scope and nature of “personality rights”.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed an ad-interim order restraining several defendants from uploading, hosting, generating or making available further material impersonating Sanon, falsely suggesting an association with her, or containing sexually explicit, obscene or morphed images, videos or audio, including AI-generated content.
The Court also restrained the defendants from presenting chatbots or voice models as Sanon and from making available merchandise of the kind placed on record. However, it expressly clarified that its directions would not restrict legitimate news, reviews, criticism, commentary, satire, parody, caricature or fan expression falling outside the prohibited categories.
The Court said the arrangement was only an ad-interim measure and declined to grant the omnibus restraint sought by the plaintiff, observing that uncertainty remained in both law and fact regarding broader questions surrounding “personality rights”.
Justice Kaurav observed that sexually explicit deepfakes, morphed images, impersonating accounts and chatbots presented as the plaintiff could cause harm that might not be undone later. However, interim protection had to remain limited to the identified content and specific URLs.
The Court made an important prima facie finding that “personality rights” cannot be treated as a single, standalone cause of action.
According to the Court, the expression covers several distinct claims that may arise from the unauthorised use of an individual’s identity, including the right of publicity, passing off, privacy, defamation and, where applicable, rights under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act.
It further distinguished between personal interests such as privacy, dignity and reputation, and the right of publicity, which protects the commercial value of an individual’s identity and can be licensed.
“The right of publicity is, therefore, not the same as the right of privacy, though it has roots in it,” the Court observed prima facie. It added that different claims have their own elements, defences and remedies and cannot simply be placed under one umbrella to lower the threshold for securing an injunction.
The Court also said that rights arising from personality and persona are available to every individual and are not limited to celebrities. Fame may be relevant in determining whether an identity has commercial value and the extent of loss caused by its misuse, but it is not a condition for the existence of such rights, the Court said.
Significantly, the Court observed that the mere use of a person’s identity is not, by itself, unlawful. A plaintiff seeking relief must specify, defendant-wise and content-wise, the precise claim being made and the material supporting it.
“All the claims in a suit of this kind cannot be put under one umbrella and met with one omnibus injunction,” the Court observed.
Sanon’s counsel told the Court that the actor’s name, image, likeness and voice were allegedly being misused in multiple ways. These included purported booking services, social media accounts claiming to represent her official presence, AI-generated and morphed images, sexually suggestive content, merchandise, AI chatbots and synthetic voice models, prompt-based image generation and pornographic deepfakes.
The Court noted the submission that such content was multiplying every day, with much of it allegedly being created using AI tools. Some of the material allegedly impersonated Sanon or depicted her in obscene settings.
On the liability of online intermediaries, the Court referred to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and the law laid down in Shreya Singhal. It observed that intermediaries are parties required to comply with directions and cannot be treated as wrongdoers merely because third-party content is hosted on their platforms.
The Court said directions to intermediaries must identify the specific unlawful material. A general direction to remove “all other content” allegedly infringing personality rights would improperly require intermediaries to determine the boundaries of a legal right that remains disputed.
The Court further noted the 2026 amendments to the Information Technology Rules concerning synthetically generated information and said the present order would constitute actual knowledge for the purposes of compliance with the relevant rules.
Prima facie, the Court found that certain defendants appeared to have falsely represented an association with Sanon or impersonated her, while AI-generated, morphed and sexually suggestive content engaged her privacy and dignity. It also observed that chatbots, voice models and certain image-generation activities allegedly appropriated the commercial value of her identity and affected her dignity.
The Court held that the pornographic deepfakes referred to in the material placed before it had “no expressive value at all”.
Accordingly, the Court directed the concerned intermediaries to take down or disable access to the URLs identified in the suit within the time prescribed under the Information Technology Rules. It also directed the concerned authorities to issue necessary blocking directions for websites containing the pornographic deepfake material.
The defendants were further restrained, until the next hearing and subject to further orders, from uploading or making available additional material of a similar prohibited nature.
The Court clarified that all its observations were prima facie and made only for the purpose of the interim arrangement.
The matter is listed before the High Court on December 10, 2026, while the suit is listed before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings on December 21, 2026.
