Sanon’s counsel told the court that the actor’s name, image, likeness and voice were allegedly being misused in several ways.
The Court further noted the 2026 amendments to the Information Technology Rules concerning synthetically generated information and said that the present order would constitute actual knowledge for the purposes of compliance with the relevant rules. The matter is listed before the High Court on December 10, 2026, while the suit is listed before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings on December 21, 2026. (With agency inputs) You Can Also Check: Gold Rate in Delhi | Silver Rate in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi | Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Petrol Price in Delhi | Diesel Price in Delhi | CNG Price in Delhi | LPG Price in Delhi Stay updated with the latest Delhi news. Because third-party content is hosted on their platforms, on the liability of online intermediaries, the Court referred to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and the law laid down in Shreya Singhal, observing that intermediaries are parties required to comply with directions and cannot be treated as wrongdoers merely.
The court also made significant prima facie observations on the scope and nature of so-called “personality rights”. The court also barred the defendants from presenting chatbots or voice models as Kriti Sanon and from making available merchandise similar to the products submitted as evidence, according to news agency ANI. The Court said the present arrangement was only an ad-interim measure and declined to grant the omnibus restraint sought by the plaintiff, observing that there was uncertainty of both law and fact regarding the broader questions surrounding “personality rights”. However, he said interim protection must remain limited to the identified content and specific URLs. The court also made an important prima facie observation that “personality rights” cannot be treated as a single, standalone cause of action. The expression describes several distinct claims that may arise from the unauthorised use of a person’s identity, including the right of publicity, passing off, privacy, defamation and, where applicable, rights under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act, according to the Court. “The right of publicity is, therefore, not the same as the right of privacy, though it has roots in it,” the Court observed prima facie, adding that different claims carry their own elements, defences and remedies and cannot simply be placed under one umbrella to lower the threshold for securing an injunction. It said fame may help determine whether a person’s identity has commercial value and the extent of loss caused by its misuse, but it is not a prerequisite for such rights. A plaintiff seeking relief must specify, defendant-wise and content-wise, the precise claim being made and the material supporting it, the Court said. “All the claims in a suit of this kind cannot be put under one umbrella and met with one omnibus injunction,” the Court observed. Sanon’s counsel told the court that the actor’s name, image, likeness and voice were allegedly being misused in several ways. The Court said directions to intermediaries must identify the specific unlawful material, and a general direction to remove “all other content” allegedly infringing personality rights would improperly require intermediaries to determine the boundaries of a legal right that itself remains disputed. The Court held that the pornographic deepfakes referred to in the material placed before it had “no expressive value at all”.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has directed online intermediaries to remove or block access to identified URLs carrying content that allegedly impersonates actor Kriti Sanon . The material includes sexually explicit deepfakes, morphed images and other objectionable content. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed an interim order restraining several defendants from uploading, hosting, generating or sharing any further content that impersonates Kriti Sanon or falsely suggests an association with her. The order also bars sexually explicit, obscene or morphed images, videos and audio, including AI-generated material. At the same time, the Court expressly clarified that its directions would not restrain legitimate news, reviews, criticism, commentary, satire, parody, caricature or fan expression falling outside the prohibited categories. Justice Kaurav observed that sexually explicit deepfakes, morphed images, impersonating accounts and chatbots presented as the actor could cause harm that might be difficult to undo. It further distinguished between personal interests such as privacy, dignity and reputation, and the right of publicity, which protects the commercial value of an individual’s identity and can be licensed. The court also observed that personality and persona rights are available to every individual, not just celebrities. Significantly, the Court observed that the mere use of a person’s identity is not, by itself, unlawful. These included purported booking services, social media accounts claiming to be her official profiles, AI-generated and morphed images, sexually suggestive content, merchandise, AI chatbots and synthetic voice models, prompt-based image generation and pornographic deepfakes. The Court noted the submission that such content was multiplying every day, with much of it allegedly being created using AI tools, and that some of the material impersonated Sanon or depicted her in obscene settings. Prima facie, the Court found that certain defendants appeared to have falsely represented an association with Sanon or impersonated her, while AI-generated, morphed and sexually suggestive content engaged her privacy and dignity. It also observed that chatbots, voice models and certain image-generation activities allegedly appropriated the commercial value of her identity and affected her dignity. Accordingly, the Court directed the concerned intermediaries to take down or disable access to the URLs identified in the suit within the time prescribed under the Information Technology Rules. It also directed the concerned authorities to issue necessary blocking directions in respect of websites containing the pornographic deepfake material. The defendants were further restrained, until the next hearing and subject to further orders, from uploading or making available additional material of a similar prohibited nature. The Court clarified that all its observations were prima facie and only for the purpose of the interim arrangement. Download the TOI App.