C&M E-Alert: The Delhi High Court on AI and Deepfakes: Evolving Standards for Protecting Individual Persona

INTRODUCTION

The intersection of artificial intelligence, deepfake technology, and individual identity frequently throws up complex legal issues, particularly in the realm of personality and celebrity rights. The Delhi High Court recently engaged with such emerging concerns in two notable cases: Ankur Warikoo v. John Doe & Ors^[1]. and Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev v. Rogue Websites & Ors^[2]. In Warikoo, the plaintiff, stated to be a personal‑finance educator and influencer, alleged that anonymous individuals (John Does) had circulated AI‑generated videos falsely depicting him endorsing high‑return stock schemes and inviting followers into WhatsApp investment groups. In Sadhguru, similar deceptive deepfakes featuring the guru’s voice, image, and speeches were used across rogue websites and social media to promote products and scams, misappropriating his persona for illicit commercial gain. Both suits squarely dealt with whether AI‑driven impersonations of public figures can infringe not just reputation and privacy, but also personality rights and trademarked goodwill.

In the Warikoo’s case, the Court, in its interim-order, recognized a strong prima facie case of misappropriation finding that the AI‑generated videos misused Warikoo’s name, voice, image, and registered trademark “Warikoo” (owned by Zaan WebVeda) to defraud the public and tarnish his reputation. The Court viewed the scheme as more than a mere reputational injury: it amounted to deception and commercial exploitation of his personal brand, and of a nature which can have serious consequences for the public at large.

In the Sadhguru’s case, the Court took note of the technological sophistication and potential harm of deepfake impersonations. The Court observed that AI-generated content using Sadhguru’s likeness or voice not only undermined his personal integrity and claimed spiritual authority but also infringed upon his personality and publicity rights. The interim-order framed the misuse as a direct threat to Sadhguru’s personality and publicity rights among others, especially when used to peddle misleading information. 

THE COURT’S DECISIONS

In Warikoo’s case, the Delhi High Court issued a John Doe injunction, restraining unknown defendants from using his image, likeness, voice, or persona; by any means including AI and also restrained misuse of his registered mark. Similarly, in Sadhguru’s case, the Court granted ‘dynamic’+ injunction^[3], ordering rogue websites, social media accounts, domain registrars, and platforms to disable and pull down any unauthorized deepfake content within tight timeframes. It also directed government bodies like DoT and MeitY to coordinate with intermediaries to ensure swift takedown and prevent future misuse of Plaintiff’s personality.

CONCLUSION

While these were interim orders, the decisions rendered mark a significant inflection point in the developing jurisprudence on personality and celebrity rights in India, particularly against the backdrop of accelerating technological disruption. It hints at an emerging judicial acknowledgment that an individual’s persona; comprising their name, likeness, image, voice, and overall identity constitutes a protectable interest, both as an aspect of the right to privacy and as a form of intellectual property with standalone commercial value.

While concerns around the misuse of one’s persona are not entirely new, the advent of artificial intelligence and the proliferation of deepfake technologies have amplified the scale and ease of such misuse. Courts have previously grappled with instances involving unauthorized imitation of an influencer’s voice or use of their photographs. However, with the rapid acceleration in digital replication tools and synthetic media, it has become imperative to develop doctrinal clarity around personality rights, the right of publicity, and their intersection with intellectual property law as has been done in countries like U.S. The development of such jurisprudence ought to be grounded in a clear doctrinal framework lest we risk turning every meme into a potential lawsuit, and every parody into peril, despite their rightful place in cultural commentary and comedic relief.

[1]  CS(COMM) 514 of 2025

[2] CS(COMM) 578 of 2025

[3] A dynamic injunction is a flexible court order that allows the plaintiff to block future instances of the same infringing content without returning to court. It is commonly used in online content cases where harmful material resurfaces repeatedly.

---

Should you have any queries or comments on this alert please visit our LinkedIn page. You may also contact the authors below.