Delhi High Court on Deepfakes: Personality Rights in Akira Desai v. Sambhawaami Studios
The Delhi High Court’s interim order in Akira Desai @ Akira Nandan v. Sambhawaami Studios LLP examines AI generated deepfake films through the lens of privacy, personality and publicity rights, granting wide injunctive relief and takedown directions against an unauthorised “AI LOVE STORY” movie exploiting the young actor’s persona.
The decision in Akira Desai @ Akira Nandan v. Sambhawaami Studios LLP & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 283, arises from a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court alleging large-scale misuse of a young actor’s persona through AI generated content. The plaintiff, a 21 year old student from the prominent Konidala film family, claimed that his name, image, likeness, voice and other attributes of identity enjoy substantial public recognition and commercial value by virtue of his lineage, public appearances, musical contributions and social media presence, making him particularly vulnerable to unlawful exploitation. He pleaded that these factors together confer on him a distinct, recognisable public persona and goodwill, protected both as an aspect of his right to privacy and as personality/publicity rights under Indian law.
The trigger for the suit was the creation and online circulation of a one hour AI generated film titled “AI LOVE STORY”, claimed to be the “world’s first global AI movie”, in which the plaintiff is portrayed as the lead character without his consent. According to the plaint, the defendants used Generative AI tools and deepfake techniques to synthetically recreate the plaintiff’s face, body, voice and mannerisms with high fidelity, and placed this AI avatar in various romantic and intimate scenarios that never occurred in reality. The film, uploaded on YouTube in Telugu and English, had already garnered over 11 lakh views, while a large number of derivative shorts, reels and clips were being circulated on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X, further amplifying the misuse. The plaintiff alleged that these acts created a false impression of his participation, association or endorsement, and caused continuing harm to his dignity, reputation and mental wellbeing, in addition to diluting the uniqueness of his identity.
Beyond the feature length film itself, the plaint detailed a broader ecosystem of infringing conduct. This included AI morphed videos showing the plaintiff in fabricated intimate scenes, clips linking him romantically with another celebrity minor, edits depicting him in fictional narratives associated with existing films, and a series of impersonation accounts and pages using his name and image across social media. Some of these accounts allegedly solicited donations and engaged in crowd funding, creating an additional risk of fraud on unsuspecting members of the public in the plaintiff’s name. The plaint annexed an extensive list of URLs (Annexure A) mapping these videos, shorts and profiles, and traced the infringing activities back to the first defendant’s website and channels as the originator of the AI film and key promotional material.
In support of the legal claim, the plaintiff framed the misuse as a composite violation of his right to privacy, personality and publicity rights, and copyright based interests in his persona. He relied on the Delhi High Court’s decision in DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House to argue that Indian law recognises a common law right of publicity, under which identifiable commercial exploitation of a person’s identity, whether via name, photo, likeness, voice or other distinctive attributes, without consent, is actionable. The plaint emphasised that this right extends to preventing “unearned commercial gain” from a celebrity’s persona, particularly where the use misleads the public into believing that the individual has licensed, endorsed or is otherwise associated with the content or product. At the same time, the plaintiff acknowledged that legitimate caricature or parody enjoys protection, but contended that the impugned AI content was not parody; instead, it was realistic, intimate, and expressly marketed on the strength of his identity to draw traffic and revenue.
Applying these principles at the interim stage, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela undertook a prima facie evaluation of the pleadings and documents. The Court noted that the plaintiff, though young and at an early stage in his career, has a noticeable public presence: he had previously appeared in a film role, contributed to the music of the Telugu film “OG”, run a music focused digital channel with substantial following, and been covered in the media for his performances. Combined with his family background, being the son of a renowned actor and current Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and an acclaimed actress director, the Court accepted that he enjoys an independent, commercially valuable public persona. Significantly, the Court observed that the very decision of the defendants to cast him as the AI lead and market the film around him was itself a testament to the distinctiveness and economic pull of his image and personality.
The Court was particularly troubled by the nature and scale of the AI generated misuse. It recorded that the impugned film and related content used AI tools to morph, modify and distort aspects of the plaintiff’s persona, his face, body, voice and mannerisms, to create deepfake images and videos that were capable of deceiving the public into believing that he had actually acted in the film or participated in those scenarios. Some of the images placed on record showed the plaintiff in fabricated intimate situations and in association with minors, raising serious concerns about reputational and moral harm and the potential for unlawful financial exploitation. The Court remarked that the proliferation of such content showcased the “lurking dangers of unexceptionable magnitude” posed by AI generated deepfakes, especially when targeted at well known personalities, and underscored the need for a strong judicial response at an early stage.
In assessing the standard for interim relief, the Court drew extensively on the reasoning in DM Entertainment. It reiterated that to establish a breach of publicity rights, the individual must be identifiable from the impugned use, and that the use must be sufficient to indicate appropriation of the persona or its essential attributes. The Court also recalled that publicity rights are rooted in individual autonomy over the commercial use of one’s persona, while cautioning that over enforcement should not stifle free speech or legitimate parody. On the facts before it, however, the Court concluded that the plaintiff was clearly identifiable, that the AI content went far beyond any form of satire, and that the commercial angle, through views, engagement and brand positioning around an AI “innovation”, was evident.
On this foundation, the Court found that the plaintiff had made out a strong prima facie case and that the balance of convenience decisively favoured him. It held that if the defendants were not restrained, the injury to the plaintiff’s personality, dignity and reputation would be irreparable, since “a dent to the personality and the very image of the plaintiff can neither be measured in monetary terms nor be resurrected conveniently”. The Court therefore granted an ex parte ad interim injunction with wide ranging operative directions. First, the defendants, their associated entities, employees, agents and all persons acting for or through them were restrained from creating, publishing, uploading, sharing, transmitting, communicating or disseminating the AI generated film “AI LOVE STORY (Telugu) 4K” (in Telugu and English) and any related content that used or misappropriated the plaintiff’s personality traits, across all media and formats, including websites, social media, mobile apps and metaverse environments.
Secondly, the Court imposed a broad restraint on the defendants, including unknown “John Does”, from violating the plaintiff’s personality/publicity rights by exploiting any facet of his persona without consent. This covered his names (“Akira”, “Akira Nandan”, “Akira Desai” and variants), photographs, images, likeness, visuals, voice and speech patterns (including AI generated versions), mannerisms, gestures, signature poses, performances, characters, dialogues, and any other attributes exclusively identifiable with him, as well as any deepfake, morphed, superimposed or manipulated content. The prohibition applied to both commercial and non commercial uses where such exploitation occurred through technologies including Artificial Intelligence, Generative AI, Machine Learning and deepfakes, and across physical and virtual media.
Thirdly, the Court separately protected the plaintiff’s right to privacy, restraining the defendants from modifying, distorting, reproducing or otherwise using his personality traits in a way that results in distortion or mutilation prejudicial to his reputation. This privacy focused direction again explicitly encompassed AI, Generative AI, Machine Learning and deepfake technologies and extended to all relevant platforms and media. In addition, the Court issued specific directions to Meta as defendant no. 3: it was required to inform users responsible for the infringing URLs listed in Annexure A to take down the content within 72 hours, failing which Meta itself would have to remove the material, and to provide the plaintiff with basic subscriber information and IP login details of the account holders within three weeks. Counsel for YouTube/Google and Meta also stated that they would comply with blocking of the infringing links identified in the plaintiff’s annexures.
Procedurally, the Court granted the plaintiff exemptions and procedural accommodations necessary to secure urgent relief. It allowed exemption from pre institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, on the ground that the matter involved pressing interim relief. It also granted time for filing court fees, allowed additional documents to be brought on record in line with the Commercial Courts Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, and permitted exemption from advance notice to certain defendants in view of the urgency. The plaint was directed to be registered as a suit, summons were ordered to be issued with timelines for written statements, admissions/denials and replication, and the matter was listed before the Joint Registrar for completion of pleadings and subsequently before the Court for further hearing.
Finally, the Court looked beyond the immediate dispute and requested counsel for the plaintiff and the key intermediary defendants to assist in formulating an appropriate procedure for addressing similar AI driven grievances in the future. That invitation, read with the breadth of the interim directions and the express reference to AI, Generative AI and deepfakes across the order, shows that the Court views this case as a template for developing Indian jurisprudence on the interface between personality rights, privacy and emerging technology. At the same time, the Court was careful to state that its findings are prima facie and confined to the interim stage, with the merits of the parties’ claims to be tested as the suit progresses through pleadings, evidence and final hearing.