Delhi HC Protects Tabu's Personality Rights, Orders Takedown of AI Deepfakes [Read Order]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of actor Tabassum Jamal Hashmi, professionally known as Tabu, restraining the unauthorised use of her name, image, voice and other personality attributes, and directing several online platforms and websites to take down infringing content, including AI-generated material and a fabricated statement falsely attributed to her.

The Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh was hearing a commercial suit filed by the actor against Ashok Kumar, an unknown individual operating an Instagram handle offering unauthorised bookings for her appearances, along with several online publications, e-commerce platforms and intermediaries including Google LLC, Meta Platforms Inc., X Corp., Ebay Inc., Flipkart, Reddit and GoDaddy.com LLC, among others.

The plaint set out the plaintiff's career spanning over three decades in Indian and international cinema, her national and international awards including the Padma Shri, and her association with several brand endorsements, to establish that her name, image, voice and moniker 'Tabu' had acquired substantial goodwill and commercial value amounting to protectable personality and publicity rights.

The plaintiff's case, as argued by Senior Advocate Swathi Sukumar, was that the infringement fell into three broad categories: first, an Instagram handle unauthorisedly offering bookings for the plaintiff's appearances and performances using her name and images; second, a publication that had carried a false and fabricated statement attributed to the plaintiff, which she had never made, and which the publication continued to circulate despite a public clarification; and third, the sale of merchandise such as mugs, posters, calendars and clothing bearing her photographs without consent. It was further submitted that AI-generated and deepfake obscene images, videos and GIFs, created by manipulating excerpts from the plaintiff's films and public appearances, were being circulated online to attract viewership and monetise traffic, causing serious injury to her reputation and dignity.

The Court, on a perusal of the screenshots and other material placed on record, held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction, and that the balance of convenience lay in her favour, with irreparable harm likely if the injunction was not granted. Relying on its earlier decisions in D.M. Entertainment v. Baby Gift House, Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India and Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store, the Court reiterated that unauthorised commercial use of a person's name, image or other distinctive attributes constitutes an infringement of personality rights and results in unearned commercial gain to the infringer. 

"Plaintiff is entitled to protection against publications, which are disparaging and denigrating as also those which reflect false endorsements on merchandise etc. Plaintiff is right in contending that uploading and dissemination of AI-generated videos containing deliberately edited content of movies or public appearances or interviews, to sensationalize and divert traffic on the websites for monetary gains, is causing irreparable harm to the goodwill, reputation and commercial value attached to the brand endorsements by her."

The Court further noted that despite a categorical denial issued by the plaintiff to various newspapers, the concerned publication had continued to circulate the fabricated statement, describing this as an egregious act intended to sensationalise and monetise traffic at the cost of the plaintiff's dignity.

Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the Court restrained the individual operating the impugned Instagram handle and other defendants, including John Does, from using or exploiting any attribute of the plaintiff's personality or publicity rights, including her name, moniker, voice, signature, images or movie stills, through any technology including Artificial Intelligence, deepfakes or face-morphing, for commercial or personal gain. The publication was restrained from circulating the fabricated statement and directed to take it down within three days. Google LLC, Meta Platforms Inc., X Corp., Reddit Inc. and other intermediary defendants were directed to take down, remove or disable the specific infringing URLs identified in the annexures to the order within 36 hours, while GoDaddy.com LLC and Hosting Concepts B.V. were directed to lock and suspend certain infringing domains within the same period. The concerned defendants were further directed to disclose basic subscriber information and IP log details to the plaintiff within three weeks.

The Court also allowed the plaintiff's applications seeking exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi and the Division Bench decision of the High Court in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. RA Perfumery Works Private Ltd., having regard to the urgent nature of the relief sought. The Court also granted exemption from serving two months' advance notice under Section 80 CPC to the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications, issued summons to the defendants, and listed the matter for further proceedings on 07.12.2026.

Appearances

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate, with Rohan Talwar, Deeksha Jani, Preksha Diwakar, Anirudh Bhatia, Jinay Jain, Rishika Aggarwal, Ritik Raghuwanshi and Anshu Tulsyan, Advocates.

Counsel for the Defendants: Mamta Rani Jha, Shruttima Ehersa, Aiswarya Debadarshini and Jahanvi Agarwal, Advocates for Google LLC; Varun Pathak, Radhika Roy and Ashrika Mehra for Meta Platforms, Inc.; Deepak Gogia, Aadhar Nautiyal and Shiwangi Kohli, Advocates for X Corp.; Nitin Sharma, Angad Singh Makkar and Brinda Nagaraja, Advocates for Ebay Inc.; Surabhi Pande and Affan Moin, Advocates for Flipkart Internet Private Limited; Ankit Parhar, Adithya Nair and Shreya Gupta, Advocates for Reddit Technologies India Private Limited and Reddit Inc.; Mrinal Ojha, Debarshi Dutta and Nikhil Gupta, Advocates for GoDaddy.com LLC; and Kruttika Vijay, Yash Raj, Suvarna Singh and Harshitha Rathod for Hosting Concepts B.V, Advocates.

Case Title : Tabassum Jamal Hashmi v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. [CS(COMM) 812/2026]

[Read Order]