Court Takes Up Pleas
The Delhi High Court on Tuesday heard a significant set of petitions that place the fast-evolving problem of artificial intelligence-generated misuse squarely before the judiciary. Actor and Member of Parliament Kangana Ranaut has sought legal protection against obscene and manipulated content allegedly using her likeness, while Telugu actor Vijay Deverakonda has filed a similar plea. Justice Vikas Mahajan issued summons in both matters, marking an important procedural step in what is likely to become a closely watched test of personality and publicity rights in India.
The petitions reflect a broader anxiety among public figures over the ease with which digital tools can now fabricate images, videos and audio that appear authentic to ordinary users. In the present case, the concern is not limited to defamation in the traditional sense. The issue extends to the commercial and reputational exploitation of a celebrity's identity, particularly when AI-generated material is obscene, misleading or designed to attract traffic through shock value. For public figures whose names and faces carry market value, the legal stakes are substantial.
Rising AI Abuse
The case arrives at a moment when Indian courts are increasingly being asked to define the boundaries of personality rights in the digital age. These rights, though not codified in a single statute, have been recognised through judicial precedent as protecting an individual's control over the commercial use of their name, image, voice and other identifying attributes. The rise of generative AI has complicated that framework by making it easier to reproduce a person's likeness at scale, often without consent and with little traceability.
For celebrities, the harm is twofold. First, there is the immediate reputational damage caused by obscene or false content that may be shared widely before it can be challenged. Second, there is the longer-term erosion of identity control, as synthetic media blurs the line between authentic public appearances and fabricated material. In a media environment driven by virality, even clearly false content can generate real-world consequences, including harassment, loss of endorsements and public confusion.
The Delhi High Court's decision to issue summons suggests that the bench sees the matter as deserving formal judicial scrutiny rather than summary dismissal. While the court has not yet ruled on the merits, the proceedings may help clarify how existing legal protections can be applied to AI-assisted misuse. That question is increasingly urgent as deepfakes and synthetic content move from novelty to routine instrument of online abuse.
Legal Stakes Ahead
The petitions by Ranaut and Deverakonda also highlight a broader policy gap. India has no dedicated, comprehensive law governing AI-generated impersonation or synthetic sexualised content, leaving victims to rely on a patchwork of remedies under defamation law, copyright principles, privacy claims and platform takedown mechanisms. That fragmented approach can be slow and uneven, especially when content is hosted across multiple jurisdictions or recirculated through anonymous accounts.
The court's handling of these pleas may therefore carry significance beyond the two petitioners. A strong judicial response could reinforce the principle that digital likeness is not free for exploitation simply because technology makes copying easy. It could also strengthen the hand of public figures seeking swift relief against obscene deepfakes and manipulated media. At the same time, the case raises difficult questions about enforcement, platform accountability and the technical ability of courts to distinguish authentic content from synthetic fabrications.
For now, the summons issued by Justice Mahajan places the burden on the respondents to answer allegations that the petitioners' identities have been misused online. The matter is likely to draw attention from the entertainment industry, digital rights lawyers and policymakers watching how Indian courts adapt to the legal consequences of AI. As synthetic media becomes more sophisticated, the judiciary is being pushed to define where free expression ends and unlawful digital impersonation begins.