Delhi HC Grants Ad Interim Injunction Against Deepfake Impersonation On YouTube | Directs Google To Takedown Channel Violating Personality Rights Of News Anchor
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh directed Google LLC to take down a YouTube channel impersonating a senior news anchor and ordered disclosure of the account holder’s details. The Court held that the use of a near-identical YouTube name, along with the anchor’s image and voice, violated her personality rights and was unlawful. An interim injunction was granted to restrain such unauthorized usage, and the platform was directed to comply with further takedown requests related to similar fake profiles.
The plaintiff, a major Indian media house engaged in television broadcasting and digital media, filed a suit seeking urgent ad interim relief against multiple defendants, including Google LLC and an unidentified person running a YouTube channel under the name “@AnajanaomKashya.” The plaintiff alleged unauthorized use of its senior anchor’s name, image, and fake video content.
An oral request was made by the plaintiff’s counsel at the outset to implead Ms. Anjana Om Kashyap, Managing Editor (Special Projects), as Plaintiff No. 2. The Court allowed the oral request and directed that an amended memo of parties be filed within a week. The plaint was then registered as a suit.
Summons were issued to the defendants upon filing of the process fee. The Court directed that written statements be filed within 30 days of receiving summons, accompanied by affidavits of admission or denial of the plaintiff's documents. Replications, if any, were to be filed within 15 days of receiving written statements, along with corresponding affidavits. Provisions were also laid down for inspection of documents within prescribed timelines. The matter was listed for hearing before the Roster Bench on 11th August 2025.
The suit was supported by an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking an ad interim injunction. The plaintiff submitted that the impersonating channel used misleading and doctored content featuring Plaintiff No. 2 and falsely depicted such content as being officially produced by the plaintiffs.
The Court noted that the plaintiff company manages various reputed news channels, including Aaj Tak, India Today, and Good News Today. It was stated that Plaintiff No. 2 has been with the plaintiff company since 2012 and maintains an official YouTube presence under the handle “@AnjanaomKashyap-AOK,” which has around 39,300 subscribers. In contrast, the impersonating channel, “@AnajanaomKashya,” used a deceptively similar name, excluded the letter “p,” and presented fake news clips and images to mislead viewers.
The plaintiffs submitted that such actions infringed upon personality rights and sought immediate removal of the channel and its contents. Supporting images of both YouTube pages were submitted to the Court.
The plaintiff’s counsel argued that the fake channel was designed to exploit the reputation and goodwill of both plaintiffs. By mimicking the name and posting fake content, the impersonator aimed to deceive the public and derive commercial gain, potentially subjecting the plaintiff company to liability for unauthorised or misleading content.
In light of the above, the plaintiffs prayed for urgent intervention, including disclosure of the impugned channel operator’s identity and an account of any monetization made through the platform.
Justice Prathiba M. Singh recorded that “a perusal of the YouTube pages would show that there is clearly a difference between the YouTube page of the Plaintiff and that of the Defendant No.2.” It was noted that “considering the identity of the Defendant No.2 with the missing ‘P’ in the word ‘Kashyap’, it is clear that the same appears to be a fake YouTube page.”
The Court stated that “such fake YouTube pages or fake profiles being made using the Plaintiffs’ goodwill, reputation and personality would be contrary to law.” The Court added that “the proliferation of fake youtube pages of a well known organisation or a Personality could result in enormous damage and dissemination of misinformation as the same would lack editorial control.”
It was further observed that “in the area of news broadcasting, responsibility has to be taken by the broadcaster and the anchor to ensure that incorrect or misleading news is not disseminated. If fake Youtube pages using the name and image of the Plaintiff no.2 are allowed to come up and be disseminated, the same would violate her personality rights.”
On the question of unauthorized content, the Court stated that “even if the content is original content, the same cannot be permitted to be disseminated by anyone other than the Plaintiffs who own the Broadcast Reproduction Rights in all their broadcasts.” Regarding fake or fabricated content, the Court noted that “the Plaintiff no.1 company could also be made responsible for such fake news videos put up without its knowledge.”
The Court noted the monetization potential of such impersonating accounts by recording that “it is also common knowledge that youtube pages are created for earning revenues and monetising the same.” With specific reference to the slight alteration in name, the Court held that “the use of the entire name of Plaintiff no.2, with just the deletion of the letter ‘p’, as also the image, voice etc., for commercial benefit is illegal and contrary to law.”
Based on these findings, the Court found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and proceeded to issue ad interim relief.
The Court directed that Google LLC shall take down the impugned YouTube channel ‘@AnajanaomKashya’ which has been impugned in the present suit within 48 hours.
The Basic Subscriber Information (‘BSI’) details of the person who has put up this channel, shall be disclosed to the Plaintiff within two weeks. Upon the said information being received, the Plaintiff shall take steps to implead the said person/ entity itself.
The Defendant No. 1/ Google LLC shall also file an account of whatever revenues, if any, which may have been paid to this channel owner, within a period of four weeks.
In case any further YouTube pages or channels are identified by the Plaintiffs, consisting a fake profile of Plaintiff No.2, the URL shall be supplied by Defendant No.1 who shall take them down within 72 hours.
If Google LLC does not take down the infringing content or objects to taking down the same for any reason, the reasons thereof shall be communicated to the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs, are free to move an application before this Court.
Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC be done qua the person/ entity running the YouTube channel ‘@AnajanaomKashya’ within two weeks after the details of the said person/ entity are received.
The matter is listed before the Roster Bench on 11th August 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Hrishikesh Barua, Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, and Mr. Alman Cleancy, Advocates
For the Respondents: Ms. Mamta R. Jha, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Shrutima Ehersa, Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Ms. Himani Sachdeva, and Ms. Devanshi Raj, Advocates
Case Title: T.V. Today Network Limited & Anr. v. Google LLC & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 634/2025
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
