Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee has issued a significant ex parte ad interim injunction order in a civil suit seeking protection of personality rights from online misuse. The court restrained multiple defendants, including rogue websites and social media accounts, from using, exploiting, or morphing the plaintiff’s image, voice, and persona, through AI-generated content and other technological means. The court directed an immediate takedown of infringing content and granted liberty to the plaintiffs to notify further violations during the pendency of the suit.

The Court held that the plaintiff, a globally recognized spiritual leader, had established a prima facie case warranting urgent relief. Stating the irreparable harm caused by misuse of a public figure’s likeness and voice, especially through AI-generated deepfakes and impersonation, the court found that the plaintiff’s personality rights were being violated at scale. Consequently, directions were issued to various defendants including YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), and government authorities for immediate action.

Also Read: Supreme Court Slams Misuse Of Gangsters Act | Application Of Law Must Be Reasoned Not Routine | Liberty Cannot Be Sacrificed To Mechanical Arrests And Pre-Printed Gang Charts

The plaintiffs in the matter sought judicial intervention for a permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs such as damages, rendition of accounts, and protection of personality rights. The first plaintiff is a globally renowned spiritual leader and the second plaintiff is a non-profit trust established for spreading spiritual knowledge.

The plaintiffs contended that multiple rogue websites and social media accounts were engaged in unauthorized exploitation of the first plaintiff’s identity, including his name, likeness, voice, image, and overall persona. The infringement, they asserted, extended to creation of AI-generated deepfakes used in false financial scams, product promotions, and fabricated endorsements.

According to the plaint, in December 2024, the plaintiffs discovered that several rogue websites—defendant nos. 1 to 41—had begun using AI tools and technology to unlawfully create and stream manipulated content, falsely attributed to the first plaintiff. The content included doctored interviews, impersonated speeches, and misrepresented endorsements for cryptocurrency schemes, NFT promotions, healthcare products, and more.

Specifically:

• Defendant No. 1 allegedly created two fake websites ("expressindia9510.xyz" and "newstoday0124.xyz") featuring falsified reports of the plaintiff’s arrest to garner public support and induce users to register on trading platforms under false pretenses.

• Defendant No. 2, an X (formerly Twitter) user, promoted NFTs under the brand "3rdEyeNFT" using AI avatars styled after the plaintiff.

• Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 misused the plaintiff’s image and voice on Instagram to promote hair care products and books on pregnancy, respectively, implying false endorsements.

• Defendant Nos. 5 to 41 operated YouTube channels that repurposed the plaintiff’s speeches and image using AI-generated content and visuals under the pretense of motivational and spiritual videos.

These primary defendants were allegedly exploiting the plaintiff’s well-established identity and using modern AI and digital tools to deceptively enhance viewership and monetize content. The websites and platforms were designed to avoid detection and frequently used redirection, masking, and mirror domains.

In support, the plaintiffs relied on communications sent to YouTube on May 10 and 13, 2025, seeking takedown of infringing content citing violations of Rule 3 of the IT Rules, 2021, Section 66D of the IT Act, 2000, and Section 500 of IPC.

Defendants Nos. 42 to 45 were digital platforms such as domain registrars, social media companies, and video hosting sites. Defendants Nos. 46 and 47—the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY)—were impleaded to ensure enforcement of orders. Defendant No. 48 represented unknown John Doe entities.

Applications were also filed for exemption from pre-litigation mediation, exemption from advance service on defendants 46 and 47, and leave to submit video evidence in an encrypted pen drive.

The court, after examining the pleadings and accompanying documents, observed

"The plaintiffs are asking for safeguarding the personality rights of the Sadhguru/ plaintiff no.1, especially when the use thereof is by an unknown third party with whom neither of the plaintiffs have any connection/ association with."

The Court acknowledged the stature of the plaintiff and noted: "The plaintiff no.1 is a known person/ personality and not a fly by night operator who... needs, if not due credit but at least protection for what he is and in view of what is transpiring at the present."

The misuse of personality rights through AI-generated tools, the Court noted, had the potential to cause widespread harm: "If allowed to continue in the manner it will soon spread like a pandemic with wide uncontrollable repercussions... It is extremely implausible to ask the plaintiffs... to respond to the world at large qua the ‘originality’ of the plaintiffs."

The Court justified the need for a dynamic+ injunction: "All the above call for this Court to pass a ‘dynamic+’ injunction... to protect parties like the plaintiffs herein against rapidly developing online infringement platforms."

On the legal framework, the Court held: "The rights of a plaintiff cannot be rendered otiose in this world of rapidly developing technology... enforcement of intellectual property rights on any social platform... ought to be visible and effective."

The Court further observed: "With the immense degree of freedom enjoyed by developers and innovators globally today, all and sundry... are vulnerable to the actions of the ‘rogue websites’."

Stating the danger of mirror websites, the Court recorded: "Such ‘hydra-headed’ websites... have the incredible potential to resurface in multitudes as alphanumeric or mirror websites... making it virtually impossible to locate and contact their operators."

Finally, the Court summarized the risks: "Given the plaintiff no. 1’s unique position as a trusted source for spiritual guidance worldwide, any misrepresentation of his endorsement risks irreparable damage... The gravity of the present case extends beyond mere economic considerations."

Based on its findings, the Court issued the following directives:

The Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 1 to 41 and 48 from "using or exploiting the plaintiff no. 1’s name, image and likeness, voice, and any other aspects of his persona... without the plaintiff no. 1’s express written authorisation... in any manner that amounts to violation of the plaintiff no. 1’s personality and publicity rights."

The Court directed Defendant No. 42 to "suspend/ lock/ disable the domain name and ... and disclose all details including but not limited to registrant details and billing details."

Defendant No. 43 (X/Twitter) was ordered to "take down/ disable the post at https://x.com/3rdEyeNFT/... and disclose the Basic Subscriber Information and all other information... for the users of the said profiles."

Defendant No. 44 (Meta/Instagram) was directed to "suspend/ block/ disable defendant no. 3 account... and disclose the basic subscriber information."

Also Read: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Eviction Over Procedural Breach | Failure To Issue Mandatory Notice Violates Natural Justice

Defendant No. 45 (YouTube) was directed to "suspend/ takedown/ disable the YouTube accounts... of defendant nos. 5 to 41... and disclose the basic subscriber information and all other information... corresponding to the said YouTube accounts."

The Court directed the Department of Telecommunications and MEITY to "issue necessary notifications/ directions calling upon various service providers/ social media platforms to block access... as may be subsequently notified by the Plaintiffs."

The Court also granted liberty to the plaintiffs to notify further infringing content to Defendant No. 45 during the pendency of the suit, which must be acted upon within 36 hours.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Plaintiffs: Mr. Srikrishna Rajagopal, Ms. Disha Sharma, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, Mr. Angad Makkar and Mr. Pushpet Ghosh, Advocates

For the Respondents: Ms. Mamta R. Jha, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Shruttima Ehersa, Mr. Rahul Choudhary and Ms. Himani Sachdeva, Advocates; Mr. Sandeep Kumar Mahapatra and Mr. Tribhuvan, Advocates

Case Title: Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev & Anr. v. Igor Isakov & Ors.

Case Number: CS(COMM) 578/2025

Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee

[Read/Download order]