How India's Courts Are Filling the Deepfake Legal Vacuum

First, there is no statutory personality or publicity right. Unlike jurisdictions with codified image rights, Indian celebrities have historically had to rely on passing-off actions under trademark law or torts, an awkward fit for AI-generated manipulation. Courts have only recently begun grounding these protections in the fundamental right to dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution .

Second, the cybercrime provisions of the IT Act are structurally inadequate. Sections 66C (identity theft) and 66D (impersonation) are intent-based offenses. When anonymous actors deploy sophisticated deepfake models from overseas servers, proving the criminal intent of a specific individual becomes practically impossible. Legal analysts have described this as a "fatal enforcement gap" .

Third, intermediary accountability remains ambiguous. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules of 2021 originally did not obligate platforms to proactively detect or label AI-generated media. Amendments proposed in October 2025 introduce the concept of "Synthetically Generated Information" and condition safe harbour protections on compliance with detection and labelling obligations, but critics argue these rules look strong on paper and are hard to enforce in practice .

How the Delhi High Court Has Responded

Rather than wait for Parliament to pass a comprehensive deepfake statute, the Delhi High Court has become the preferred forum for celebrities seeking emergency relief. Its approach follows a consistent, aggressive pattern: grant ex parte interim injunctions quickly, order takedowns from platforms within 72 hours, and direct intermediaries to treat court orders as formal complaints under the IT Rules .

Gavaskar: Bringing Personality Rights to the Sports World

In December 2025, Sunil Gavaskar secured an order making him the first Indian sportsperson to receive court-sanctioned personality rights protection. The ruling prohibits anyone from using his name, image, voice, or likeness for any commercial purpose—including AI-generated content and deepfakes—without explicit authorisation . The court also directed major platforms including X, Facebook, and Instagram to treat his grievance as a formal complaint under Rule 3(2) of the IT Rules and resolve the issue within seven days, a timeline far faster than standard takedown procedures .

Bollywood's Legal Barricade

The Bachchan family secured some of the most sweeping early orders. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan’s September 2025 case resulted in an ex parte injunction specifically prohibiting the use of her name, likeness, voice, or image “by means of artificial intelligence or deepfake technologies,” with infringing content to be removed within 72 hours and platform operators’ identities disclosed within seven days . Amitabh and Abhishek Bachchan secured similarly broad protections, with judges consistently grounding the orders in constitutional dignity rather than traditional intellectual property .

The 2026 Wave

By early 2026, the trickle of cases had become a surge. In February, the court drew a firm line in Vivek Oberoi’s case, granting broad injunctive relief against fake profiles, morphed content, and deepfakes . In March, former cricketer and Member of Parliament Gautam Gambhir filed a civil suit seeking comprehensive personality-rights protection and ₹2.5 crore in damages against AI-generated deepfakes and unauthorised commercial exploitation . In May, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed an ad-interim injunction in Arjun Kapoor’s case that specifically targeted AI-generated deepfake videos, some of which were sexually explicit, and directed Google and Meta to remove infringing content and disclose subscriber details .

What Happens Next

The current situation is unsustainable over the long term. The judiciary is filling a legislative vacuum through case-by-case interim orders, but these are temporary fixes that depend on celebrities having the resources to litigate. There is no statutory definition of a deepfake, no codified personality right, and no clear criminal pathway for prosecuting anonymous creators operating across jurisdictions .

The October 2025 proposed amendments to the IT Rules represent the government’s first attempt at a regulatory framework, introducing formal recognition of “synthetically generated information,” mandatory visible labelling (at least 10% of the media frame), and obligations on platforms to deploy detection technology. However, legal scholars and practitioners have pointed out that the provisions are vague, that mandating traceability of origin is technically difficult, and that relying on safe harbour conditions to force compliance may prove to be a weak enforcement mechanism .

A growing consensus among legal academics holds that India needs a specialised deepfake statute—or at minimum sweeping amendments to the IT Act and BNS—that would criminalise nonconsensual deepfake creation, mandate consent and disclosure, impose clear platform liability, and require technical safeguards including watermarking and AI detection tools . Until that happens, the Delhi High Court remains the most powerful, if unwieldy, weapon Indian celebrities have against being turned into AI-generated salespeople without their consent.