What happened
Kriti Sanon approached the Delhi High Court, asking the bench to protect her name, image, likeness and other aspects of her identity from unauthorised commercial use and AI‑generated deepfakes. The single‑judge bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav requested the actress’s counsel to submit relevant judgments, research papers and other material on personality rights. The court will issue a comprehensive order after reviewing the submissions, and the matter is listed for a further hearing on October 29.
On a recent hearing before a single‑judge bench of the Delhi High Court, actress Kriti Sanon’s legal team filed a petition seeking protection of her personality and publicity rights. The petition alleges that her name, image, likeness and other aspects of her identity have been used without permission, including through AI‑generated content that mimics her appearance and voice.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav asked Sanon’s counsel to place on record relevant judgments, academic research and other material that address the legal questions surrounding personality rights in the age of . The court indicated it would issue a comprehensive order after reviewing these submissions.
The matter has been scheduled for a further hearing on October 29, giving the court additional time to consider the legal arguments and any precedents. The filing comes amid a wave of similar cases in India where celebrities and public figures are confronting unauthorised digital impersonation and deepfakes.
Bollywood Hungama notes that the Delhi High Court has recently heard several cases involving AI‑generated content, reflecting a broader judicial focus on the intersection of technology and personality rights.
Source details: bollywoodhungama.com ↗
Why it matters
The case highlights the growing legal challenges posed by tools that can create realistic images, videos and audio of public figures without consent. As AI‑generated deepfakes become more sophisticated, courts are being asked to interpret existing personality‑right statutes in the context of digital impersonation. A ruling in favour of Sanon could set a precedent for how Indian courts address AI‑driven misuse of celebrity identities, influencing future litigation, platform liability, and the development of safeguards against unauthorised AI content. It also underscores the broader tension between creative AI applications and individual rights, a debate that is playing out globally.
The petition underscores the practical implications of AI‑generated deepfakes for individuals’ control over their own image and brand. If the court rules in favour of Sanon, it could compel platforms and AI developers to implement stricter verification and takedown mechanisms for unauthorised synthetic media.
A precedent in this case would provide guidance for other Indian courts handling similar disputes, potentially shaping a body of case law that defines the limits of AI‑driven impersonation under existing personality‑right statutes.
The case also signals to the AI industry that legal scrutiny of generative tools is intensifying, prompting companies to consider compliance measures, such as synthetic media or offering opt‑out mechanisms for public figures.
Internationally, the outcome may be cited in comparative analyses of how different jurisdictions are adapting privacy and publicity laws to address the challenges posed by deepfake technology.
Interactive Mechanism: How It Actually Works
Explore the underlying technology behind this development interactively.
Why can ethical evaluation not be reduced to one model score?
What to watch next
Future hearings and the final order from the Delhi High Court; any subsequent guidelines issued by the court on AI‑generated content; reactions from social‑media platforms and AI service providers regarding compliance; potential legislative proposals in India to strengthen personality‑right protections against AI deepfakes.
The October 29 hearing and the final judgment, which will clarify the court’s stance on AI‑generated impersonation.
Any official guidelines or orders issued by the Delhi High Court that outline procedural steps for platforms to address unauthorised AI content.
Responses from major social‑media platforms (e.g., Instagram, YouTube) and AI service providers regarding policy changes or technical safeguards to prevent misuse of celebrity likenesses.
Potential legislative initiatives in the Indian Parliament aimed at updating personality‑right and data‑protection laws to explicitly cover AI‑generated media.