The
Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to
Aishwarya Rai Bachchan in a case about the illegal use of her name, pictures, and persona on various digital platforms along with commercial products, which also included wrong use through artificial intelligence (AI). Let's learn more about the court order.
Court orders platforms to take down unauthorized content
According to an NDTV report, the ruling, delivered by Justice Tejas Karia, mandated the immediate removal of unauthorized content and AI-generated material posted on different digital platforms. Reportedly, the judge directed the platforms, e-commerce websites, and Google LLC to block the URLs mentioned in the petition.
The court ordered Google to "take down, remove, disable, and block the URLs identified in the petition" within 72 hours of receiving the notice.
Apart from that, the court also directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications to issue directives accordingly.
As per the report, further proceedings will take place on January 15, 2026.
According to the court, if the identity of a popular person is being used without any authorization, then it might result in "commercial detriment and impact their right to live with dignity."
Given that Aishwarya had made a strong case before the court and that "the balance of convenience also tilts in her favor," it granted an interim injunction.
As per the report, the court added that illegal use of Plaintiff's name, picture, likeness, and other elements of persona "clearly constitutes infringement."
According to the court order, unauthorized use of the above-mentioned things "will inevitably cause confusion and create a perception of endorsement by the Plaintiff."
The court also observed that attributes of Aishwarya's persona have been misused without any authorization from the actress "by employing technological tools, including artificial intelligence."
As per the court, such misuse of her identity is causing her "financial detriment," along with "harming her dignity, reputation, and goodwill."
The court also acknowledged Aishwarya's popularity and how the misuse of her identity can affect the brands she is representing. The court added, "She has garnered significant goodwill and reputation such that the members of the public repose their trust in the brands endorsed by the Plaintiff."
Here's what Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's lawyer said about the case
Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's lawyer, senior advocate Sandeep Sethi, stated that her identity has been exploited massively for both commercial as well as inappropriate purposes. The lawyer presented proofs before the court, including coffee mugs, t-shirts, and more with Aishwarya's picture imprinted on them.
He told the court that numerous websites falsely presented themselves as her official platforms, misleading the public and infringing on her publicity rights. Not just that, the advocate also raised concerns over the use of her AI-generated pictures in obscene settings. He said, "Some intimate photographs were being used that are completely unreal."
He pointed to companies using fake representations, saying some entities are 'John Doe', using her image on coffee mugs and other articles without permission. He also revealed that a company named Aishwarya Nation Wealth has listed the actress as its chairperson on official documents, which is completely untrue. He added the actress "had no awareness of or involvement with such entities."
What did the defendants say?
Mamta Rani, the lawyer representing Google, mentioned that the company would need specific URLs so that it can take the content down. Justice Karia remarked that, while a uniform ruling would be preferable, injunctions may need to be granted individually depending on the severity of the offenses.
The court advised the actress' side that they can approach the Blocking and Screening Instructions (BSI) process or provide specific URLs to Google for taking them down.
As per the report, the court clarified that "since the reliefs sought were broad, it would pass orders against each defendant individually. If a common order were possible, the court would issue it; otherwise, injunctions would be granted separately."