As artificial intelligence (AI) usage gains traction so is the AI deepfakes menace. But celebrities, right from Tollywood to Bollywood film stars, are taking the bull by the horns, opting for the legal route to curb this menace.
A string of civil suits filed recently by film actors like K Chiranjeevi and Akkineni Nagarjuna to Bollywood biggies like Amitabh Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Anil Kapoor show India’s sharpening legal response to AI-driven deepfakes, counterfeit merchandising and pornographic scams, putting personality rights at the centre of the entertainment economy.
Taking violations seriously, courts too have been issuing swift injunctions to curb deepfakes and unlicensed endorsements that mislead audiences and dilute personal brand value.
COURTS FRAMING PERSONALITY AS PRIVACY AND PUBLICITY TOGETHERAcross jurisdictions, judges are treating unauthorized AI images, manipulated videos and counterfeit merchandise as both privacy and publicity violations. Recent orders include “John Doe” (unknown person) injunctions against unidentified online offenders andtakedown directions to platforms, recognising a celebrity’s persona as commercially valuable and instantly associated with the star in the minds of fans, causing irreparable harm if misused.
In Hyderabad, a city civil court order on September 26, 2025, protected K Chiranjeevi’s name, image, voice and well-known sobriquets such as “Mega Star”, “Chiru”, “Annayya”, “Boss” from unauthorized exploitation by over 30 online entities.
The injunction extends to AI-generated content and the Metaverse, ruling that no T-shirts, posters, and deepfake videos be sold under his name without his consent. The Hyderabad cybercrime police also registered a case against porn sites circulating deep fake videos of the actor.
In Delhi, a 2025 order in favour of Akkineni Nagarjunarestrained dozens of obscene websites and merchandisers from using his “name, image, persona and voice”. The court relied on recent Delhi High Court (HC) precedents, including suits involving Amitabh Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, to order disabling of URLs and barring sale of merchandise bearing their likenesses.
Where does consent end? The Hyderabad Biker’s Case But not all disputes are being raised by the film fraternity. A famous Hyderabad-based biker filed a suit in a local court after she discovered her photograph, originally given to a women riders’ group for promoting International Female Riders Day, was altered and allegedly used by an Indian bike firm for advertising without consent.
Her image was allegedly manipulated to replace a Harley Davidson motorcycle with an Indian bike brand in the advertisement. The case, pending before an additional chief judge in a Ranga Reddy court, underscores how misuse of likeness affects everyone. The plaintiff’s original permission was for one event, but the image found its way into a corporate campaign, revealing how easily digital assets can be exploited without authorisation.
IN ABSENCE OF A STATUTE, JUDGES RELY ON MIX OF LAWSLegal experts say though India has no specific laws for personality rights, courts are using constitutional privacy, intellectual property doctrines and information-technology and criminal provisions (identity theft, obscenity) to order removal of content and deter further misuse.
The Supreme Court’s privacy jurisprudence, from R Rajagopal v Tamil Nadu in 1994 underpins this patchwork, while high courts have built a pragmatic framework through interim orders in series of suits filed by celebrities.
Intellectual property (IP) expert Ashok Ram Kumar says personality rights cases have become an important tool for celebrities seeking to protect their identity from misuse, economic exploitation and loss of dignity caused by AI deepfakes.
“As identity theft turns into a profitable digital enterprise, courts, though operating without a specific law, have started treating a celebrity’s identity as a form of IP. This helps prevent unauthorised use of their name, likeness or voice and paves the way for broader protection of individual identity in the future,” he says.
Delhi HC has led in speed and scope, ordering fast takedowns of deepfakes and fake profiles while leaving room for bona fide speech like satire and fan pages. Other courts, including Madras HC, Hyderabad HC and Bombay HC, have passed similar, often ex parte, injunctions balancing a celebrity’s drawing power and livelihood against the public’s speech rights.
Select The Times of India as your preferred source on Google Search
Start a Conversation
Post comment