Bombay High Court orders immediate takedown of content misusing Shilpa Shetty's image

No personality should be portrayed in a manner affecting their fundamental right to privacy, the Bombay High Court remarked today while granting interim relief to actress Shilpa Shetty Kundra in her personality rights suit against the alleged misuse of her image and deepfake content.

A vacation Bench comprising Justice Advait M Sethna directed several entities, including social media platforms, AI-linked defendants and John Doe entities, to delete or disable access to URLs, links, posts, and websites carrying allegedly morphed or manipulated images and videos of Shetty.

The Court held that such content was “prima facie extremely disturbing and abhorrent to say the least.”

The judge clarified that the larger questions of personality and publicity rights asserted by Shetty under intellectual property laws would be decided by a regular Bench.

However, the vacation Bench added that, in the meanwhile, it was duty‑bound to protect Shetty’s rights to privacy and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“No personality, much less a person and or a woman, can be portrayed in a fashion which affects her fundamental right to privacy and that too, without her knowledge and or consent,” the judge observed in the interim order.

The Court observed that Shetty is a reputed film and TV personality with over 3.33 crore Instagram followers, and that the material on social media depicted her inappropriately and unacceptably, and that the same was likely to tarnish her image and reputation.

Allowing continued circulation of such content would compromise Shetty's fundamental right to live with dignity, the Court added while ordering the immediate takedown of the same.

During the hearing, Shetty’s counsel, advocate Sana Raees Khan, argued that the defendants were misusing the actor’s photographs and persona for selling sarees and other products without authorisation. Khan argued that this violated the Copyright Act as well as Shetty's personality and privacy rights.

The judge, however, repeatedly stressed that the issue of whether, and to what extent, personality rights are recognised and enforceable under the Copyright Act and other statutes would remain open and could not be conclusively adjudicated in a vacation sitting.

The judge remarked that he would, for the present, proceed on the basis that Shetty is a credible actress and that material misusing her image without consent cannot be broadcast.

The judge also asked Shetty's counsel to place proper statutory backing and precedents before the regular Bench to support the claim that the actor's personality rights had been infringed.

Shetty’s suit comes amid a growing wave of litigation by Indian celebrities seeking to protect their personality and publicity rights against AI‑driven deepfakes, manipulated content and unauthorised commercial endorsements.

In her plaint, Shetty has alleged that AI tools are being used to clone her voice and mannerisms and to generate morphed images, posters, diaries, books and other merchandise, all monetised without consent and in ways that expose her to unsavoury humour and ridicule.

Shetty has sought a broad injunction to restrain various entities (defendants) from using her name, image, likeness, voice and other distinctive attributes.

She has further sought damages of ₹5 lakh against some parties and a comprehensive takedown of content that is violative of her privacy and personality rights.