Influencer Marketing, Personality Rights and the Rise of Delhi and Bombay High Court Injunctions

Why creators and brands are asking about personality rights

A face, a voice and a recognisable style are now among the most valuable assets in India’s creator economy, and among the easiest to copy. A cloned voice can sell a product the creator never touched, and a deepfake can attach a creator’s face to a scam. Brands and creators increasingly ask the same question: what can the law do about it, and how fast?

In India the answer has come largely from two courts. The Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court have built personality rights law one interim injunction at a time. This article explains where the doctrine comes from, how the two courts have approached it, why the Delhi High Court has recently begun to narrow it, which separate rules govern what influencers say in their promotions, and what creators and brands should do in practice. The position is as of 31 October 2026.

What are personality rights?

Personality rights, also called publicity rights, protect a person’s identity from unauthorised commercial exploitation. The identity can include name, image, voice, signature, likeness, mannerisms and catchphrases.

India has no statute that defines these rights. Courts have assembled the protection from several existing sources: the tort of passing off, the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, performers’ and moral rights under copyright law, trademark law and defamation. Because there is no codified definition, courts decide each case on its facts, which is why outcomes vary from judge to judge.

The early cases. In Titan Industries v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012), the Delhi High Court recognised that using a celebrity’s identity in advertising without consent is actionable; the judgment is still the starting point in later orders.^[1] In D.M. Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2010), Daler Mehndi’s company sued over dolls that resembled him and sang lines from his songs. The court held the sellers liable for violating his publicity rights and for false endorsement and passing off, and granted a permanent injunction.^[2]

The point that has returned to centre stage in 2026 is the other side of the balance. Not every use of a famous person’s name or face is actionable. In 2024, for example, the Delhi High Court refused to block a parody video aimed at the actor Jackie Shroff.^[3]

The Delhi High Court: from celebrity cases to AI-era injunctions

The modern wave began with Amitabh Bachchan in November 2022, when Navin Chawla J. restrained misuse of his name, voice, image and other traits in a case involving fake “Kaun Banega Crorepati” lottery schemes.^[1] Anil Kapoor followed on 20 September 2023, when Prathiba M. Singh J. granted an injunction that extended to AI tools, face swapping and similar technology.^[4] Since then the orders have grown broader and more technical:

Dynamic injunctions. In Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev v. Igor Isakov (30 May 2025), the court granted an ex parte ad interim order that extends to AI-generated deepfakes and allows the plaintiffs to add new infringing accounts and websites without starting afresh. WIPO’s IP Judges Forum has summarised the case.^{[5, 6]}

Voice and avatar cloning. In Jubin Nautiyal v. Jammable Ltd. (CS(COMM) 166/2026), Tushar Rao Gedela J. on 19 February 2026 restrained AI-generated pictures, videos and merchandise, AI voice models, digital avatars and other content imitating the singer, and ordered blocking of infringing links and apps. At the hearing, the court also asked why a singer who lives in Uttarakhand had filed in Delhi, a reminder that forum has to be justified.^[7]

Beyond film stars. The podcaster Raj Shamani obtained protection against unidentified defendants in November 2025.^[3] On 7 May 2026, Tushar Rao Gedela J. granted the boAt co-founder and Shark Tank India judge Aman Gupta an ex parte ad interim injunction against more than 44 defendants over misuse of his persona, obscene and deepfake content and an infringed trademark.^[8] Educators and founders such as Alakh Pandey of Physicswallah followed in August 2026, with relief confined to Telegram stickers, coupon-code scams and impersonating pages; a parody video was left online.^[3]

Intermediary obligations. Orders routinely direct platforms to remove notified content, and some also require marketplaces and domain registrars to act. In Vijay Sai Deverakonda v. Ashok Kumar John Doe (October 2026), Vikas Mahajan J. directed takedown of obscene content, impersonation sites and unauthorised merchandise, with marketplaces and registrars to act within 72 hours, but refused an interim injunction on the word “Rowdy” alone because distinctiveness had not been shown. The order also allows any website that has been wrongly blocked to approach the court with an undertaking not to infringe, so that the injunction can be modified.^{[9, 10]}

The Bombay High Court: AI tools, performers and the entertainment industry

The Bombay High Court’s contribution has been distinctive on technology providers and on suits that combine personality rights with performers’ and moral rights.

Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP (26 July 2024). R.I. Chagla J. granted an ad interim injunction against AI platforms and others, in what was reported as the first Indian order on AI voice cloning. The court treated the singer’s name, voice, image and likeness as protectable and held that offering a tool that converts any voice into a celebrity’s voice without consent violates his rights.^[11]

Asha Bhosle (29 September 2025). Arif S. Doctor J. granted interim protection in a commercial suit that combined copyright and performers’ rights claims with personality rights, covering AI voice models, generative AI and face-morphing tools, and directed the blocking of infringing websites, platforms and YouTube videos. The order relied on the earlier decision in Arijit Singh.^[12]

Shilpa Shetty (4 March 2026). Sharmila U. Deshmukh J. barred commercial sellers from using her identity and directed intermediaries to remove flagged content within eight days of notice, while letting platforms contest specific takedown requests. Reports of the order stress dignity and privacy under Article 21 in connection with deepfakes and morphed images.^[13]

Preity Zinta (8 July 2026) and Shruti Haasan (September 2026). In July 2026 the court directed takedown of identified AI-generated, morphed and superimposed content in Preity Zinta’s suit against Google and others.^[14] In early September 2026 Madhav Jamdar J. ordered platforms to remove deepfake content, chatbot personas, voice simulations, GIFs and unauthorised merchandise in Shruti Haasan’s suit, which the court heard on a leave basis because part of the cause of action arose outside Bombay.^[15]

Karan Johar (June 2024). On 13 June 2024, the court granted an interim injunction against the release of a film whose title used the producer’s name; the order was later made absolute and was upheld by a Division Bench in 2025.^[16]

A practical difference. Delhi has been the busier forum and the main source of John Doe and dynamic injunctions. Bombay’s orders have been prominent where claims combine personality rights with performers’ rights, and where the defendants are AI tool providers. For a media or entertainment client, forum choice usually turns on where the defendants operate, where the plaintiff carries on business, whether leave is needed and which court’s recent orders best fit the relief sought.

The 2026 correction: “amoebic proportions”

The number of suits has produced a judicial response. During 2026, the Delhi High Court, and in particular Anup Jairam Bhambhani J., has repeatedly declined broad relief:

Meenakshi Chaudhary (September 2026). The court granted an ex parte injunction against sexually explicit content but refused blanket relief. “I am against granting blanket injunctions on personality rights,” the judge said, and on the monetisation claim he said: “You have to show me that they are making money.”^{[17, 3]}

Janhvi Kapoor (August 2026). The court ordered removal of 552 of 6,884 identified web addresses, all in the pornographic category, and refused a blanket takedown of the rest. Interim protection was limited to obscene content, content directly monetising her persona and merchandise using her name and likeness.^{[3, 18]}

Raghav Chadha (2026). Subramonium Prasad J. ordered removal of five posts but refused a blanket takedown, observing at the hearing that, prima facie, “no personality right” was involved in criticism of the politician’s move from one party to another.^{[19, 3]}

Toprankers Edtech (April 2026). The court held that a single academic achievement does not give rise to personality rights, while restraining use of a CLAT topper’s name and images on defamation and trademark grounds.^[3]

Aaradhya Bachchan (August 2026). Hearing a suit over YouTube videos falsely claiming that the 14-year-old was ill or dead, the judge remarked: “The concept of personality rights is acquiring amoebic proportions. Everything is personality rights. But whose personality rights?” He asked how far a family name’s reputation extends and whether defamation can be treated as an intellectual property issue.^[20]

The lead hearing. On 28 September 2026, Bhambhani J. said he wanted to “chip off” what is not a personality right, with the definition emerging gradually. The suits of Vivek Oberoi, Janhvi Kapoor and Aaradhya Bachchan are being heard together from 30 September, and six other suits, including those of Vikas Pahwa, Allu Arjun and Meenakshi Chaudhary, are on hold.^[21] Advocates Gautam Bhatia (in the Kapoor suit) and Rohan Alva (in the Oberoi suit) were appointed amici curiae in September 2026.^[22]

The amici’s proposals. The two amici have proposed different frameworks. On 6 October 2026, Rohan Alva proposed that claims be sorted into five categories, each with its own legal test: (1) commercial misuse (merchandise, false endorsements and advertising); (2) works involving a celebrity (art, books, scholarship and fan communities); (3) obscene content and deepfakes; (4) impersonation and deception, such as fake endorsements or fake advice attributed to a celebrity; and (5) speech about a celebrity (reporting, criticism, satire and parody), which alone needs case-by-case balancing. Whether someone is a celebrity, he suggested, depends on prominence, “immediate recall” of the name and how far the person has voluntarily placed themselves before the public, and recognition may exist within only a section of the public.^[23]

Gautam Bhatia, in a brief dated 2 October 2026 and argued on 7 and 8 October, said that “personality rights” is not a single cause of action but a bundle of interests, and that a standalone personality rights claim with a broad John Doe injunction is unknown to Indian law. He proposed that courts split each suit into non-commercial claims (defamation and privacy) and commercial claims (publicity, passing off, copyright and trademark), that mere commercialisation of a celebrity’s image is not enough for a takedown without something more, such as deception, and that satire, parody, memes and fan work should generally be protected. On who is a celebrity, he argued that courts should stop asking, because in the age of virality the category is fluid.^{[18, 24]}

The judge’s own questions show where the court is probing: how many people must know you before you are a celebrity, whether a fan club can exist without using the celebrity’s likeness, and how far a name’s protection “flows down” a family.^{[23, 18]} As of the hearings reviewed for this article (early October 2026) we are not aware of a final ruling on these questions, so the position should be rechecked before any filing.

The other half of the story: regulation of influencer marketing

Personality rights protect the creator’s identity. A separate set of rules governs what creators say when they promote products. Both matter to any influencer campaign.

Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Section 21 empowers the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA) to act against false or misleading advertisements. It can penalise a manufacturer or an endorser up to Rs 10 lakh, and up to Rs 50 lakh for each later contravention, and can bar an endorser from endorsing any product or service for up to one year, and up to three years for each later contravention. An endorser is not liable if they exercised due diligence to verify the claims made.^[25]

CCPA Guidelines, 2022. The Guidelines for Prevention of Misleading Advertisements and Endorsements for Misleading Advertisements, 2022, issued under Section 18 of the Act, came into force on 9 June 2022 and deal with disclosure of material connections and due diligence for endorsements.^[26]

Endorsement Know-Hows (20 January 2023). Issued by the Department of Consumer Affairs for celebrities, influencers and virtual influencers, they require prominent disclosure of any material connection with the advertiser and warn that failure to disclose may be actionable.^[27]

ASCI Influencer Guidelines. The Advertising Standards Council of India released its guidelines on influencer advertising in digital media on 27 May 2021 and they apply to advertisements published on or after 14 June 2021. ASCI is a self-regulatory body, so the guidelines are not binding in themselves, but non-compliance can be referred to the regulators. The guidelines have been updated since, so the current version should be checked.^[28]

Tax. TDS at 10 per cent applies to benefits or perquisites above Rs 20,000 in a financial year provided in the course of business, which includes free products and services given to influencers. This was Section 194R of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since 1 April 2026 the corresponding provision is Section 393(1) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.^[29]

What this means in practice

For influencers and creators. Build your evidence file before you need it: proof of recognisability (followers, press, brand deals) and proof of commercial value (rate cards, paid campaigns). The Delhi High Court’s focus on monetisation in 2026 makes this central. Expect the court to separate your commercial claims from your reputational and privacy claims, so plead them separately and identify specific URLs, accounts or products instead of seeking sweeping orders. Do not assume that criticism, parody or fan content can be removed; recent orders protect it. And remember that your own posts are regulated: disclose material connections clearly and do not make claims you cannot substantiate.

For brands and agencies. Treat the influencer agreement as a personality rights licence. Define exactly which attributes (name, image, voice, likeness) are licensed, for which media, territory and duration. Address AI explicitly: state whether synthetic voices, digital replicas or generative edits are permitted, and require approval for any such use. Add disclosure obligations aligned with the CCPA and ASCI norms, indemnities in both directions, takedown cooperation and a termination right for controversies. Do not use a creator’s likeness beyond the agreed term; residual use after expiry is a common way for brands to end up as defendants. Run due diligence on the claims a creator will make, because endorsers and advertisers can both face liability for misleading content.

If your identity has been misused. First, capture dated evidence: screenshots, URLs and account handles. Second, send platform notices under the IT Rules in parallel with preparing a suit; since 20 February 2026 the amended Rules also require labelling of synthetic content and set shorter takedown timelines for orders of the government and courts.^[30] Third, where urgency or unknown defendants justify it, seek an ex parte ad interim injunction and be ready to show recognisability, commercial value and, for commercial claims, monetisation. Fourth, for deepfakes involving obscene content or impersonation, consider criminal and Information Technology Act remedies alongside the civil suit.

For related reading, see our articles on IP enforcement in the generative AI era, AI and copyright in India and public law, data protection and AI governance. Our intellectual property practice advises creators and brands on personality rights and endorsement contracts. This article is general information, not legal advice.

Frequently asked questions

Is there a law on personality rights in India? No statute defines them. Courts protect them through passing off, privacy under Article 21, copyright and performers’ rights, trademark law and defamation, and decide each case on its facts.

Can an influencer get an injunction against deepfakes? Yes, the Delhi and Bombay High Courts have granted interim injunctions against deepfakes and voice cloning, including against unknown defendants. In 2026 the Delhi High Court has been narrowing relief to specific URLs, accounts and categories, and has asked who qualifies as a celebrity, so recognisability and commercial value need to be shown.

Can I get criticism, parody or fan pages taken down? Not as a matter of course. The Delhi High Court has refused blanket takedowns of criticism and parody, and the amici in the pending lead matters have argued that satire, memes and fan work deserve protection.

Do influencers have to disclose paid promotions? Yes. The CCPA Guidelines, 2022 and the Endorsement Know-Hows require disclosure of material connections, and ASCI’s guidelines require prominent disclosures. Under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, an endorser can be penalised and barred from endorsements, subject to a due diligence defence.

Is TDS payable on free products given to influencers? Yes, where the benefit given in the course of business exceeds Rs 20,000 in a financial year, TDS at 10 per cent applies; from 1 April 2026 the provision is Section 393(1) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Conclusion

Indian personality rights law is moving from rapid expansion to careful definition. The injunctions of 2022 to 2025 showed that courts would act swiftly against AI voice cloning and deepfakes. The Delhi High Court’s 2026 proceedings show that it will now ask harder questions about who qualifies, what is being monetised and where free speech begins.

For creators and brands the practical response is the same: document your value, contract precisely, comply with the disclosure rules, and bring targeted claims backed by evidence. The pending decision in the Oberoi, Kapoor and Aaradhya Bachchan suits is likely to shape the doctrine, and should be checked before any new filing.