In a landmark decision strengthening celebrity protection in the digital era, the Bombay High Court has granted actor Akshay Kumar an interim injunction against the unauthorised use of his name, likeness, and voice in deepfake videos and advertisements. The court directed social-media platforms, including Meta, Google, and X, to immediately remove all manipulated content, warning that failure to act swiftly would attract contempt proceedings.
Mumbai, October 22 —
The Bombay High Court has drawn a firm line between technology and identity, ruling that an individual’s personality rights cannot be violated under the guise of digital creativity or parody.
Justice Riyaz Chagla, hearing a civil suit filed by Bollywood actor Akshay Kumar, issued a sweeping interim order restraining unknown individuals (“John Does”) from creating, sharing, or profiting from AI-generated deepfakesmisusing the actor’s image, likeness, or voice.
“Every human being has the right to control the commercial and reputational use of their identity. Technology cannot turn a person into a product without consent,”
the court said in its 48-page judgment.
The Case That Sparked the Verdict
The actor approached the court after several AI-generated videos surfaced online showing him endorsing illegal gambling apps and political propaganda. In one viral clip, Akshay’s voice was cloned to narrate fabricated investment advice. Another falsely depicted him criticising rival actors — a move that quickly snowballed into online abuse and misinformation.
Kumar’s legal team, led by Advocate Ameet Naik, argued that these videos caused “irreparable harm” to the actor’s reputation and infringed his fundamental right to privacy and publicity.
“The harm is instant, global, and irreversible,” Naik told the court. “A lie travels faster than any legal remedy.”
Court’s Key Observations
The bench found that the manipulated videos clearly constituted unauthorised commercial exploitation and reputational defamation.
Justice Chagla emphasised that personality rights are an extension of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and are enforceable even against non-state actors.
“The identity of a person is his or her intellectual property,” the court declared. “No one can capitalise on it, whether through AI, imitation, or digital distortion.”
The Interim Injunction
The order restrains:
- All persons, entities, and social-media platforms from hosting, streaming, or sharing any AI-manipulated video of Akshay Kumar.
- Advertisers from using the actor’s image, likeness, or voice without written consent.
- Online intermediaries from profiting via ads linked to such content.
Platforms were directed to remove existing content within 24 hours of notification and proactively filter future uploads using digital fingerprinting.
Failure to comply may result in contempt of court and penalties under the IT Act.
Personality Rights: A Legal Primer
“Personality rights” — also known as the right of publicity — protect individuals from unauthorised commercial use of their identity elements (face, name, voice, etc.). While long recognised in the U.S. and Europe, Indian jurisprudence is still evolving.
Landmark precedents include:
- ICC Development v. Arvee Enterprises (2003): upheld cricketers’ rights over their persona.
- Titan Industries v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012): recognised celebrity endorsement rights.
- Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022): Delhi HC granted similar protection to the actor.
The Akshay Kumar ruling extends these principles into the AI era, treating deepfakes as an aggravated form of impersonation.
Industry-Wide Implications
Legal experts say the judgment will reshape how India’s entertainment industry handles digital rights.
“This is a precedent-setting case. It arms every public figure — actor, athlete, influencer — with enforceable protection against algorithmic exploitation,”
said Advocate Priyanka Khanna, IP law specialist.
Talent agencies and OTT platforms are already revising contracts to include AI-use clauses, prohibiting unauthorised replication or modification of performers’ images.
How Deepfakes Exploit Fame
AI deepfake tools can replicate a celebrity’s facial movements and voice with eerie accuracy using only seconds of footage. These technologies have been widely misused for:
- Fake brand endorsements,
- Fraudulent cryptocurrency schemes,
- Political propaganda videos,
- Obscene or morphed imagery.
Akshay Kumar’s deepfakes were traced to foreign IP addresses using open-source facial-replacement models hosted on darknet forums.
“It takes 10 minutes to make, 10 million views to spread, and a lifetime to undo,” remarked Dr. Jaya Sheth, digital media researcher at IIT Bombay.
Platforms Under Pressure
The court’s directive has placed tech giants like Meta, Google, and X under strict scrutiny. Each must now demonstrate automated takedown protocols for flagged deepfake content.
A spokesperson for Google India said the company “respects the court’s order” and has begun “removing harmful synthetic media in coordination with the actor’s legal representatives.”
However, digital-rights groups urge transparency.
“Courts can’t substitute systemic reform,” said Nikhil Pahwa, founder of Medianama. “We need clear, uniform AI policies rather than ad-hoc injunctions.”
AI and Law: India’s Evolving Framework
The verdict comes as Parliament prepares to table the Digital India Bill, which will replace the two-decade-old IT Act. The bill proposes:
- Criminalisation of deepfake creation and distribution,
- Mandatory watermarking of AI-generated content,
- Liability for intermediaries that monetise manipulated media,
- Compensation for victims of digital impersonation.
The Akshay Kumar ruling is expected to influence the drafting of these clauses.
Celebrity Reactions
Several actors voiced support on social media.
Amitabh Bachchan, who faced similar deepfake misuse last year, posted:
“Identity is sacred. Technology must not turn creators into victims.”
Priyanka Chopra Jonas tweeted:
“Proud of Akshay for taking a stand. This judgment protects us all — artists and audiences alike.”
Fans flooded timelines with the hashtag #RightToMyFace, celebrating what many called a “defence of digital dignity.”
The Broader Ethical Debate
Critics caution that excessive restrictions might stifle creative expression, especially satire and parody. But the court clarified that its order targets only malicious or commercial misuse, not legitimate artistic reinterpretation.
“Freedom of expression cannot mean freedom from accountability,” wrote Justice Chagla.
The ruling thus attempts to strike a balance between digital innovation and individual autonomy.
The Role of Forensic Verification
Following the order, the Maharashtra Cyber Cell was instructed to trace the origin of the deepfakes using AI forensic markers — pixel mismatches, audio waveform distortions, and GAN (Generative Adversarial Network) signatures.
India’s nascent forensic infrastructure is being upgraded with tools developed by IIT Delhi and IIIT Hyderabad capable of detecting deepfakes with over 95% accuracy.
Economic Stakes
The Indian media and entertainment industry, valued at over ₹2.3 lakh crore, depends heavily on celebrity image value. Unchecked AI manipulation could erode brand trust and cause millions in losses.
Advertising associations hailed the judgment as “a business necessity as much as a moral one.”
“No brand wants to risk fake endorsements,” said Vivek Sharma, President of the Indian Advertisers Council. “Authenticity is currency.”
Historical Parallels
Just as copyright law evolved to protect artists from piracy in the 1990s, courts are now adapting to personality piracy — the unauthorised replication of human likeness.
The Bombay High Court’s language echoes early intellectual-property reformers: “the face as a trademark, the voice as a patent, and reputation as goodwill.”
Global Resonance
Worldwide, jurisdictions are moving in the same direction.
- California’s AB 602 (2023) criminalises AI impersonation for profit.
- EU AI Act mandates transparency tags on synthetic content.
- China’s Deep Synthesis Law requires watermarks and real-name registration for AI creators.
India’s verdict situates its judiciary firmly in this emerging global legal order.
The Human Perspective
For Akshay Kumar, the issue extends beyond celebrity status.
“It’s about respect — not just for me, but for everyone whose image can be misused tomorrow,” he said in a statement. “Our faces are not playgrounds for algorithms.”
He has pledged to donate a portion of any compensation received to digital-literacy programs teaching youth how to identify deepfakes.
The Road Ahead
Legal analysts expect similar petitions from other public figures, accelerating India’s move toward codified AI personality rights law. Film producers and OTT platforms are also lobbying for a registry of approved AI models to ensure transparency in post-production digital editing.
Meanwhile, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is considering setting up a Digital Authenticity Taskforce to coordinate between law enforcement, tech firms, and content creators.
Conclusion: Truth in the Age of Replication
The Bombay High Court’s decision in Akshay Kumar’s case does more than protect a movie star — it reaffirms a universal principle: identity is non-fungible. In an age where faces can be copied and voices cloned, the right to one’s image is the last frontier of privacy.
The judgment sends a clear message — the law now recognises that every digital lie leaves a real-world scar.
#AkshayKumar #BombayHighCourt #DeepfakeLaw #PersonalityRights #CyberLaw #AIRegulation #DigitalIndia #SarhindTimes
+ There are no comments
Add yours