“Lethal Combination of a Depraved Mind and Misuse of Technology” | Bombay High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction to Suniel Shetty Against AI Deepfakes and Online Misuse of His Persona
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Single Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor, has granted ex-parte ad-interim relief to actor Suniel Shetty in a case concerning the unauthorized digital misuse of his persona through AI-generated deepfakes, impersonation, and fabricated endorsements. The Court restrained several known and unknown individuals from exploiting the actor’s identity, directing immediate takedown of infringing online content and disclosure of those responsible. Justice Doctor observed that the conduct in question “can best be described as a lethal combination of a depraved mind and the misuse of technology,” noting that such acts seriously undermine the plaintiff’s personality and privacy rights.
The suit, instituted by Suniel V. Shetty, seeks protection of personality rights, the right to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and moral rights under the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaint sets out the plaintiff’s stature as a public figure with a career spanning over three decades and enumerates films and awards to demonstrate goodwill and public association with his persona. The plaintiff also asserts commercial engagements as brand ambassador for national and international brands and large social‑media followings as indicators of public recognition and goodwill.
Through counsel, the plaintiff alleged systematic misappropriation and unauthorized exploitation of his identity and indicia by several parties, including unknown persons impleaded as “John Doe/Ashok Kumar” and identified defendants. The alleged infringing acts included circulation of AI‑generated images and deepfakes portraying the plaintiff in obscene and false depictions; AI‑generated images of family members; impersonation profiles on Meta and X Corp.; unauthorized advertisements and promotions purporting to endorse services, including a gambling/sports‑betting website, an astrologer/numerology service, a real‑estate coaching offer referencing the plaintiff as a client prospect, and an advertising service claiming to secure brand‑ambassador engagements; and unauthorized manufacture and sale of merchandise bearing the plaintiff’s name, image, likeness, and persona.
The plaint tabulates infringing links across platforms and websites and groups them under categories corresponding to AI‑generated images, impersonation accounts, advertisements and endorsements, and merchandise sales. The plaintiff submits that the acts divert the economic value of his status, create false impressions of association or endorsement, and risk deception of the public. It is further submitted that intermediaries have due‑diligence obligations under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, enabling them to restrict circulation of content that is obscene, deceptive, or impersonates another person. Urgent ex parte relief is sought on the basis that issuing notice may precipitate harm by allowing further dissemination before effective restraint.
The Court recorded that the materials placed before it “can best be described as a lethal combination of a depraved mind and the misuse of technology resultantly causing harm to the Plaintiff’s personality rights.” It referred to AI‑generated and deepfake images “of not only the Plaintiff but also images depicting the Plaintiff’s family members,” and use of the plaintiff’s image “in conjunction with promoting activities with which the Plaintiff would never associate or stand for and thereby effectively diluted the Plaintiff’s personality rights in the eyes of unsuspected public.” The Court stated that “given the gravity and potential for irreversible harm and injury,” delay in issuing notice would defeat the injunction and that the case “warrants the immediate grant of ex‑parte ad‑interim reliefs.”
The Court noted the plaintiff’s prominence, including “over 100 films” and “numerous prestigious awards,” and the presence of “millions of followers on various social media platforms” and brand‑ambassador roles with renowned brands. It recorded that “the unauthorized creation/uploading of deepfake images of the Plaintiff on social media platforms constitutes a grave infringement not only of his personality rights but also of his right to live with dignity.” It further stated that “the unauthorized use of AI generated images of the Plaintiff and his family members constitutes a blatant invasion of their privacy and their fundamental rights.”
Expounding on the scope of personality rights, the Court observed that such rights “encompass the right to control, protect, and commercially exploit one’s own image, name, likeness, and other identifiable attributes.” It stated that the “unauthorized exploitation of these attributes, while directly harming the Plaintiff’s commercial interests, right to privacy, and right to live with dignity, also poses a significant risk of harm to the public.” According to the order, the public, relying on the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation, “may be misled into placing their trust in and engaging with brands or commercial activities that have wrongfully appropriated his persona.”
Addressing the alleged misappropriation, the Court stated that “in the modern digital economy, the aforesaid Defendants’ actions constitute a deliberate conversion of the Plaintiff’s goodwill into an unearned commercial advantage.” It described such use as creating “a false sense of endorsement or affiliation, misleading the public and amounting to classic passing off, misappropriation of goodwill, and consumer deception.”
On impleading unknown persons, the Court recorded that, “given the clandestine and continuing nature of these activities and the ongoing harm, the Plaintiff has correctly impleaded Defendant No. 1, ‘John Doe/Ashok Kumar,’ to represent the entire class of such unknown persons whose identities cannot be presently ascertained.” The Court concluded: “the Plaintiff has made out a strong case for the grant of ad interim relief. The balance of convenience is also entirely in favour of the Plaintiff, and if the ad‑interim reliefs are not granted, the Plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury and harm.”
Granting ex parte interim relief against certain defendants, the Court ordered that, pending hearing and final disposal of the interim application, Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 13, 15, and 18 “shall be restrained from violating the rights of the Plaintiff.” The restraint extends to “infringing and/or utilizing and/or misappropriating the Plaintiff’s personality rights and/or moral rights” by direct or indirect use, exploitation, or imitation of the plaintiff’s indicia, including “the name ‘Suniel Shetty’,” “voice,” “image,” “likeness,” “distinctive performance, appearance and mannerisms,” and “signature,” and “any other uniquely identifiable attribute,” including “through Artificial Intelligence generated content, deepfake videos, voice cloned audio, edited or morphed visuals, metaverse environments and any future formats or mediums.”
The order further directs that the same defendants are restrained from “passing off their goods, services, schemes, content, promotions or advertisements as emanating from, endorsed by or associated with the Plaintiff” by use of the specified indicia. They are also restrained from “importing, manufacturing, warehousing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or otherwise dealing in any goods or services, including counterfeit merchandise or operating any schemes or content that exploit the Plaintiff’s indicia.”
The Court directed these defendants “to forthwith remove, delete, take down, suspend and disable access to the Infringing Content (more particularly set out in paragraphs 43 to 70 of the Plaint) and/or content similar to or identical to the Infringing Content that misuses the Plaintiff’s indicia,” across any medium or format, including physical and virtual media and social platforms.
Defendant Nos. 3 and 19 “take down/remove/disable access to all listings/pages/content identified as Infringing Content (more particularly set out in paragraphs 43 to 70 of the Plaint) and annexed at Exhibit ‘B’, Exhibit ‘E’, Exhibit ‘F’ [and] Exhibit ‘G’ thereto,” within “a period of one week from the date of the receipt of this order.” The Court further directed that, upon notification by the plaintiff of any further infringing listings or content “of a similar nature,” the platforms “shall, similarly take down/remove/disable access to such infringing listings/pages/content,” subject to their right to communicate objections with reasons.
Defendant Nos. 3 and 19 “shall… furnish to the Plaintiff the basic subscriber/seller information in their possession (including name, address, email ID, contact number, IP logs, registration details and payment details) of the sellers/uploaders of the infringing listings/content so notified,” to enable the plaintiff to implead parties or place details before the Court when necessary.
“Considering the large number of Defendants, and the fact that for some of the Defendants the contact details are not known to the Plaintiff,” adding that where postal addresses are available, compliance “by speed post service” shall also be affected within two weeks of the order being made available. The matter is listed to “stand over to 17th November 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General; Adv. Janay Jain; Adv. Monisha Mane Bhangale; Adv. Bijal Vora; Adv. Tamanna Meghrajani; Adv. Pavanaj R. Hariharan, i/b Parinam Law Associates
Case Title: Suniel V Shetty v. John Doe S Ashok Kumar
Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 32198 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 32130 of 2025
Bench: Justice Arif S. Doctor
