38.6c New Delhi, India, Tuesday, December 09, 2025
Top Stories Supreme Court
Political NEWS Legislative Corner Celebstreet International Videos
Subscribe Contact Us
close
CelebStreet

Bombay HC Grants Protection To Asha Bhosle Against AI Voice Cloning And Unauthorised Use of Personality Rights [Read Order]

By Jhanak Sharma      06 October, 2025 06:21 PM      0 Comments
Bombay HC Grants Protection To Asha Bhosle Against AI Voice Cloning And Unauthorised Use of Personality Rights

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has ruled that making Artificial Intelligence tools available for converting any voice into that of a celebrity without consent constitutes a violation of personality rights, while granting interim protection to legendary singer Asha Bhosle against unauthorized AI cloning of her voice and the commercial exploitation of her image.

Justice Arif S. Doctor issued comprehensive directions restraining multiple defendants from misusing the veteran artist’s name, voice, photographs, and other attributes of her personality through AI technology and commercial merchandise.

The court addressed Interim Application No. 30382 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit No. 30262 of 2025 filed by Asha Bhosle against Mayk Inc and several other defendants, including e-commerce platforms and content hosting services.

The plaintiff, described as an eminent personality who has been integral to the Indian music and entertainment industry for over seven decades, sought protection of her personality rights encompassing her name, voice, signature, photographs, images, and caricatures against unauthorized commercial exploitation.

The petition highlighted Asha Bhosle’s extraordinary credentials, including two National Film Awards for Best Female Playback Singer, the Dadasaheb Phalke Award (2000), BBC Lifetime Achievement Award presented by former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair (2002), the International Indian Film Academy Lifetime Achievement Award (2002), and the Padma Vibhushan (2008).

The artist has also received nine Filmfare Awards, including a Lifetime Achievement Award and a record seven Awards for Best Female Playback Singer. She was recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records in 2011 as the “Most Recorded Artist” in music history, has received two Grammy nominations, and was honored with the Maharashtra Bhushan Award in 2021.

The plaintiff’s counsel, Ankit Lohia, demonstrated her massive social media following — 746,000 on Instagram, 880,000 on Facebook, 4.6 million on X (formerly Twitter), and 285,000 on YouTube — establishing the enormous reputation and goodwill accumulated by the artist.

The suit identified multiple categories of infringement. The first defendant, Mayk Inc, operates an AI platform enabling users to convert any voice or sound recording into the plaintiff’s voice using sophisticated algorithms. The platform offers voice-cloning services that allow the public to make any celebrity, including Asha Bhosle, “sing” any song of their choice.

E-commerce platforms Amazon Seller Services and Flipkart Internet were named for displaying, advertising, and selling posters, wallpapers, portraits, and animated caricatures bearing the plaintiff’s image and likeness without authorization.

A sketch artist operating through harrytiwaridotcom was identified as selling T-shirts and hoodies featuring the plaintiff’s image among other celebrities, thereby commercially exploiting her personality rights without permission.

Google LLC was named due to numerous videos uploaded on YouTube containing songs with AI-generated vocals mimicking Asha Bhosle’s voice, with descriptions explicitly stating that the voice was cloned via AI. The plaintiff identified multiple infringing URLs where users demonstrated their ability to clone her voice and create songs for commercial monetization.

The plaintiff’s counsel argued that such technological exploitation facilitates the “unauthorized appropriation and manipulation of a celebrity’s voice, which is a key component of their personal identity and public persona.”

Justice Doctor relied on this court’s recent precedent in Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, where it was held that “making AI tools available that enable the conversion of any voice into that of a celebrity without his/her permission constitutes a violation of the celebrity’s personality rights.”

The court also drew upon the Delhi High Court’s decision in Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworlddotcom, which recognized that personality rights entail “the right to control and protect the exploitation of one’s image, name, likeness, or other attributes of an individual’s personality, in addition to the commercial gains that can be derived from the same.”

Justice Doctor observed that unauthorized exploitation has dual impacts: “first, violation of their right to protect their personality attributes from being commercially exploited; and second, violation of their right to privacy, which in turn leads to undermining their right to live with dignity.”

Google LLC’s counsel, Charu Shukla, agreed to take down specific sites and links identified in the plaint but requested two days to take instructions on broader reliefs due to her client being based in the United States.

Finding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, Justice Doctor noted that “the fact that the Applicant/Plaintiff is a pre-eminent personality in the field of music is really beyond the realm of doubt.”

The court held that making AI tools available to enable voice conversion without permission “would constitute a violation of the celebrity’s personality rights,” as such tools “facilitate the unauthorized appropriation and manipulation of a celebrity’s voice.”

Justice Doctor observed that the non-appearance of defendants Mayk Inc and the sketch artist “only lends support to the Applicant/Plaintiff’s case that the conduct of Defendants 1, 2, and 5 is purely unauthorized and infringes upon the Applicant/Plaintiff’s personality rights.”

The court granted comprehensive interim relief restraining the defendants from utilizing, exploiting, or violating the plaintiff’s personality rights, publicity rights, or moral rights, including her name, voice, vocal style, mannerisms, photographs, images, signature, and persona, without written consent.

Defendants were ordered to take down, remove, delete, or block access to all infringing content and deliver up for destruction all copies of the impugned materials, including those stored in computer records, servers, cloud storage, and AI systems.

Amazon and Flipkart were directed to remove all listings displaying merchandise bearing the plaintiff’s name, image, or likeness within one week and to establish a mechanism for responding to future notifications of similar infringements.

The platforms were further directed to furnish basic subscriber information, including names, addresses, email IDs, contact numbers, IP logs, and payment details of sellers and uploaders of infringing content, to enable the plaintiff to take appropriate action.

Google LLC was specifically ordered to take down the URLs identified in the plaint showing AI-generated content using the plaintiff’s cloned voice.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on October 13, 2025.

Case Title: Asha Bhosle vs. Mayk Inc & Ors.

[Read Order]

Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.



Share this article:

About:

Jhanak is a lawyer by profession and legal journalist by passion. She graduated at the top of her cl...Read more

Follow:
FacebookTwitterLinkedinInstagram


Leave a feedback about this
Related Posts
View All

Kedarnath Movie: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL To Stay Release Kedarnath Movie: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL To Stay Release

The Bombay High Court on December 6, 2018, dismissed a petition filed against upcoming movie Kedarnath seeking a direction to stay the release of the movie

Husband Can Also Claim Alimony/Maintenance From Wife: Bombay High Court Orders Woman To Pay Alimony To Ex-Husband [Read Order] Husband Can Also Claim Alimony/Maintenance From Wife: Bombay High Court Orders Woman To Pay Alimony To Ex-Husband [Read Order]

Husband Can Also Claim Alimony/Maintenance From Wife: Bombay High Court Orders Woman To Pay Alimony To Ex-Husband || "It is open for the court to decide the application filed by the husband under Section 25 of the 1955 Act, seeking monthly maintenance, by way of final proceedings, pending which, the application for interim maintenance filed under Section 24 of the Act of 1955, has been rightly entertained by the learned Judge and the husband has been held entitled to interim maintenance while the proceedings under Section 25 are pending," she noted.

Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik Approaches Supreme Court Against ED Arrest After Bombay High Court Refuses Relief Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik Approaches Supreme Court Against ED Arrest After Bombay High Court Refuses Relief

Maharashtra Cabinet Minister Nawab Malik Approaches Supreme Court Against ED Arrest After Bombay High Court Refuses Relief || "There is something or the other going against every leader of the NCP, Congress and Shiv Sena... Prime Minister Narendra Modi has one thing in mind: he wants BJP rule from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, irrespective of the wishes of the people," Pawar said.

Salman Khan Approaches Bombay High Court Challenging Summons By  Lower Court Against Complaint of a Journalist Salman Khan Approaches Bombay High Court Challenging Summons By Lower Court Against Complaint of a Journalist

The magistrate court issues the process if it finds prima facie substance in the allegations made in the complaint. Once the process is issued, the accused persons have to appear before the court.

TRENDING NEWS

sc-questions-precedent-on-contractual-bars-to-arbitration-claims-refers-bharat-drilling-to-larger-bench
Trending Judiciary
SC Questions Precedent on Contractual Bars to Arbitration Claims, Refers ‘Bharat Drilling’ to Larger Bench [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court refers the 2009 Bharat Drilling ruling to a larger bench, questioning its use in interpreting contractual bars on arbitration claims.

08 December, 2025 04:45 PM
j-and-k-high-court-upholds-dismissal-of-injunction-plea-in-agrarian-reforms-dispute
Trending Judiciary
J&K High Court Upholds Dismissal of Injunction Plea in Agrarian Reforms Dispute [Read Order]

J&K High Court upholds dismissal of injunction plea, ruling that agrarian disputes fall under Agrarian Reforms Act authorities, not civil courts.

08 December, 2025 05:21 PM

TOP STORIES

hostile-india-china-ties-no-extradition-treaty-allahabad-hc-denies-bail-to-chinese-national-in-visa-forgery-case
Trending Judiciary
Hostile India–China Ties, No Extradition Treaty: Allahabad HC Denies Bail to Chinese National in Visa Forgery Case [Read Order]

Allahabad High Court denies bail to a Chinese national accused of visa tampering and forging Indian IDs, citing hostile India–China ties and no extradition treaty.

03 December, 2025 12:53 AM
attachment-before-judgment-cannot-cover-property-sold-prior-to-suit-filing-sc
Trending Judiciary
Attachment Before Judgment Cannot Cover Property Sold Prior to Suit Filing: SC [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court holds that property transferred before a suit cannot be attached under Order 38 Rule 5; fraud allegations must be pursued separately under Section 53 TP Act.

03 December, 2025 01:30 AM
sc-holds-no-review-or-appeal-maintainable-against-order-appointing-arbitrator
Trending Judiciary
SC Holds No Review Or Appeal Maintainable Against Order Appointing Arbitrator [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court rules that no review, recall or appeal lies against a Section 11 arbitrator appointment order, reaffirming minimal judicial interference in arbitration.

03 December, 2025 01:40 AM
partner-cannot-invoke-arbitration-clause-without-express-authorisation-of-other-partners-kerala-hc
Trending Judiciary
Partner Cannot Invoke Arbitration Clause Without Express Authorisation of Other Partners: Kerala HC [Read Order]

Kerala High Court rules that a partner cannot invoke an arbitration clause or seek appointment of an arbitrator without express authorisation from co-partners.

03 December, 2025 05:19 PM

ADVERTISEMENT


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email