INTRODUCTION
With the advancement of Artificial Intelligence, the capacity to create highly realistic images, videos and audio of persons has grown expeditiously. While these tools afford creative and commercial opportunity, they also present serious risks of misuse, particularly in the form of Deepfake, misappropriation of persona, false endorsements, invasion of privacy and harm to reputation. Courts in India are increasingly called upon to deal with these issues using existing legal doctrines- constitutional rights, Intellectual property law, passing off, etc. to provide redress.
Recently an order has been passed in Suniel Shetty vs. Ashok Kumar (John Doe) in the Bombay High Court (2025) in which the court addressed unauthorized AI‐generated/deepfake images, false endorsements, impersonation and misuse of personality. Justice Arif Doctor on 11th October 2025 opined the decision in favour of Suniel Shetty directing the concerned social media platforms and the defendants to remove the content and stop misusing the personality rights of the Plaintiff.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Suniel Shetty, a public figure / actor, brought a suit titled Suniel Shetty vs. Ashok Kumar (Commercial Intellectual Property Suit) in 2025 in the Bombay High Court. He alleged that some known and unknown individuals have used AI / deepfake technology to produce and circulate obscene images of Suniel Shetty and his family including images with his grandchild.
He alleged that real estate agencies, gambling websites, astrology websites, and other commercial entities used his image, likeness, name, voice‐tone, signature mannerisms, etc. without consent for commercial gain. Therefore he sought reliefs including injunctions restraining known and unknown persons from further misuse, takedown of offending content by social media platforms, disclosure of identities (IP addresses, account details) of those uploading infringing content.
ISSUES RAISED IN THE CASE
- Does an individual have a legal right to control unauthorized use of their image, likeness, voice, etc. particularly via AI / deepfake?
- Whether deepfake misuse infringes rights under Article 21 of the Constitution?
- Are acts of misuse justiciable under the Copyright Act (moral rights) or under other IP laws?
- Whether false endorsements create a misrepresentation that the celebrity has endorsed something thereby misleading the public and misappropriating goodwill?
- Whether prima facie case is made out, whether there is irreparable harm and whether wide injunctions should be granted ex parte?
ARGUMENTS
Contentions put forth by the Plaintiff (Suniel Shetty)
Advocate for the Plaintiff argued that the AI‐generated images/Deepfakes are not only obscene and defamatory but violate his persona i.e. personal identity, privacy and dignity. He further contended that these images mislead the public into believing that the plaintiff has endorsed or is associated with certain websites (gambling, astrology, etc.) and other commercial activities though he has no connection. This causes damage to his goodwill, reputation and economic interest. He additionally argued that the family members’ privacy and dignity are impacted and therefore the misuse is broader than just his public image. Therefore he pleaded for urgent relief as the delay will cause irreparable injury concerning that the misuse is ongoing by known and unknown individuals.
ORDER
The Bombay High Court, single judge bench of Justice Arif S Doctor granted ex parte ad interim relief in favour of Suniel Shetty[1]. The court characterised the misuse as “a lethal combination of a depraved mind and misuse of technology,”[2] observing that the unauthorized creation or uploading of deepfake images constitutes a grave infringement of personality rights and the right to live with dignity.
The court held that images of Suniel Shetty and his family created via AI being used by others without consent are a blatant invasion of privacy under Article 21 and also infringe moral rights under the Copyright Act. Therefore an injunction was passed restraining the named and unnamed defendants from using Sunil Shetty’s name, image, likeness, voice, mannerisms, signature, any uniquely identifiable attribute including in AI‐generated content, deepfake videos, voice‐cloned audio, edited/morphed visuals etc.
The court issued a John Doe order, i.e., restraining unknown persons whose identities cannot presently be ascertained, so that any future infringers can be brought under the injunction. Directions were issued to social media platforms to take down infringing material identified in the plaint (within one week or other fixed time) and provide details of users responsible. On balance of convenience, the court found in favour of the plaintiff as harm would be irreparable and delay would defeat the purpose of injunction.
ANALYSIS
This case is significant in several aspects as it illustrates how Indian jurisprudence is adapting to the challenges posed by Deepfakes and AI misuse. The Suniel Shetty v Ashok Kumar case reinforces that personality rights though not codified in a single statute are recognized under Indian legal system drawing upon constitutional protections (privacy and dignity under Article 21), moral rights under the Copyright Act, and doctrines like passing off. The judgment explicitly addresses misuse through AI, deepfake images, etc.
This shows courts are willing to tailor relief to emerging technology rather than treat all misuse the same. In Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. AishwaryaWorld.com & Ors., Aishwarya Rai Bachchan filed a suit in Delhi High Court seeking injunctions to prevent unauthorized use of her name, image, likeness, including via AI / deepfake or face morphing. The Delhi HC restrained e‐commerce platforms and websites and issued takedown orders of infringing content within 72 hours[3].
Similarly the Delhi High Court granted an interim order restraining such misuse against the person misusing personality rights of the actors Amitabh Bachchan and Anil Kapoor.[4] The fact that the court accepted misuse of family images helps set precedent that privacy claims may extend beyond just the celebrity in their public capacity. Furthermore, use of John Doe orders allows injunctions to be effective even when infringers are unknown which is very important in digital cases. Hence platforms are being ordered to take down content and disclose information of wrongdoers, showing responsibility being placed on intermediaries in digital space.
CHALLENGES AND SUGGESTIONS
- Lack of a specific statutory regime for personality / publicity rights: There should be a statute for personality and publicity rights specifically designed against the misuse of AI as there is heavy reliance on the common law and precedents in such cases.
- Proving that the content is AI generated: Use of watermarking, verification tags and artificial intelligence tools to detect deepfakes should be encouraged. Additionally Certification regimes for content that is AI‐generated to inform viewers should be used.
- Compensation often still undetermined: Courts should consider awarding damages more often, not just injunctions.
- Clear Guidelines for Intermediaries and Platforms: Rules/regulations (via IT Act / MeitY / other regulatory bodies) requiring prompt removal of deepfake content when notified, obligations for platforms to verify or act upon complaints. Platforms should maintain logs, be responsive to takedown notices and provide user details to plaintiffs when ordered.
- Lack of awareness: public should be educated regarding the risks of Deepfakes (misinformation, defamation) and encourage celebrities / public figures to monitor and act swiftly.
CONCLUSION
The Suniel Shetty vs. Ashok Kumar case marks a significant turn in Indian law’s response to the deepfake challenge. The Bombay High Court recognising that new technologies can severely harm dignity, privacy, reputation, and commercial goodwill, has used existing legal tools such as personality rights, moral rights, passing off and constitutional rights to provide effective interim relief. In conjunction with precedents like Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor etc., shows that the Indian judiciary is rapidly evolving to meet the demands of the digital age.
Nevertheless much remains to be done. Legislation, better enforcement mechanisms and clearer rules for intermediaries are needed. For students, lawyers, public figures and policymakers, this is a live area of law, what is being decided now will have long‐term implications for identity, expression, privacy and image rights in India. As deepfake technologies become more accessible, the balance between creative/technological progress and protection of individual rights becomes ever more delicate and it is cases like Suniel Shetty’s that will set the contours for fairness, redress and responsibility.
Author: Vanshita Dev, Rizvi Law College, Mumbai University
View the entire judgement: https://jpassociates.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Suniel_Shetty_Order.pdf
[1] https://iprmentlaw.com › Suniel_Shetty_Order
[2] https://www.livelaw.in › … › Bombay High Court