For more intellectual property updates follow our WHATSAPP CHANNEL and SUNS LEGAL | LinkedIn
Introduction
The case of Shashi Tharoor v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. CS (OS) 414/2026 is a landmark decision of the Delhi High Court dealing with the misuse of artificial intelligence and deepfake technology in the realm of personality rights. Shashi Tharoor, a Member of Parliament and former international diplomat, sought protection against the unauthorized cloning of his persona through synthetic media. The matter raised critical questions about identity theft, publicity rights, and the constitutional protection of reputation in the digital age.
Fact of the Case
Shashi Tharoor, a distinguished parliamentarian, author, and former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, is widely recognized for his distinctive voice, vocabulary, and oratorical style. In March 2026, he discovered hyper-realistic deepfake videos that cloned his face, voice, and mannerisms. These fabricated clips falsely depicted him making politically sensitive statements, including praise for Pakistan’s diplomatic strategies as “absolute brilliance.”
The dissemination of these videos occurred during the Kerala Legislative Assembly elections, causing serious reputational harm, political embarrassment, and international controversy. Despite fact-checkers debunking the content, algorithmic amplification on platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) and Meta ensured their continued circulation.
The suit was filed directly before the Delhi High Court, and therefore no prior lower court rulings were filed.
Argument in Favour
The plaintiff argued that the unauthorized cloning of his likeness and voice infringed his personality rights, publicity rights, and his fundamental Right to Privacy. His counsel characterized the defendants’ actions as common law torts of passing off, misappropriation, and dilution by tarnishment.
Statutory violations were also highlighted. Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 was invoked, which penalizes identity theft through misuse of electronic signatures, passwords, or other unique identification features. Additionally, Sections 335 and 340 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 were cited, which deal with forgery and falsification of electronic records.
The plaintiff emphasized the geopolitical consequences of the fabricated statements. Given his background in international relations and diplomacy, false statements attributed to him carried immense weight and jeopardized his credibility and institutional integrity. The dissemination of such content during an election campaign was argued to be a deliberate attempt to tarnish his reputation and interfere with the democratic process.
Argument Against
Meta, appearing as Defendant No. 3, informed the Court that the URLs listed in the plaint had already been made inaccessible on Instagram by the time of the hearing. Other defendants, including government authorities, were represented, but formal written statements were still pending as summons had just been issued.
The general defense emphasized compliance with takedown requests and suggested that the plaintiff’s claims required further factual examination at trial. The defendants did not dispute the seriousness of the allegations but argued that the matter involved complex questions of fact that could not be resolved at the interim stage.
Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favour of Shashi Tharoor. The Court held that a prima facie case had been established, the balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff, and irreparable harm would result without interim relief.
The Court emphasised that personality and publicity rights are protectable under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. It noted that these rights are “no more res integra,” meaning the issue is no longer an open or undecided question of law, since it is conclusively settled by prior authoritative decisions. The Court affirmed that an individual’s reputation, voice, and oratorical style form part of their legally protected “Personality Rights,” over which they enjoy sole and exclusive control. Unauthorised exploitation of these attributes is impermissible.
The Court also addressed the admissibility of electronic evidence. Rule 24 of Chapter XI of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 allows submission of videographic evidence via encrypted CD/DVD, ensuring authenticity and compliance with evidentiary standards.
In reaching its conclusion, the Court drew upon several precedents. In Exphar SA v. Eupharma Laboratories Ltd. (2004) 3 SCC 688, the Supreme Court held that jurisdictional objections must proceed on the assumption that the plaintiff’s facts are true, a principle relevant to interim relief. In Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy (2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780), the Delhi High Court established the “sliding scale test” and “effects test” for internet jurisdiction, principles that informed the Court’s approach to online dissemination of deepfakes. The Court also referred to Tata Sons P. Ltd. v. Hakunamatata Tata Founders (2022 SCC OnLine Del 2968), which held that mere accessibility of a website can confer jurisdiction, and Federal Express Corp. v. Fedex Securities Ltd. (2018 (74) PTC 205 (Del) (DB)), which clarified that mere reference to a website without proof of transactions does not confer jurisdiction. Finally, Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. v. Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine Del 2404) was cited, where the plaint was returned for lack of jurisdiction due to absence of communication or orders through online listings. Although these cases primarily dealt with trademark and internet jurisdiction, the Court applied their principles to the novel context of AI-generated impersonation and synthetic media.
Accordingly, the Court issued several directions. Defendant No. 1 (John Doe) and associates were restrained from misappropriating Tharoor’s persona to create synthetic media. Defendant No. 2 (X/Twitter) was directed to block infringing links, while Defendant No. 3 (Meta) was ordered to ensure that blocked links remained inaccessible. Both X and Meta were further directed to provide Basic Subscriber Information, IP logs, and identities of the infringing account creators within three weeks.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Shashi Tharoor v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. marks a significant landmark in the protection of personality rights against the misuse of generative AI. By affirming that attributes such as voice, likeness, and oratorical style form part of an individual’s legally protected persona, the Court has meaningfully extended constitutional safeguards under Articles 19 and 21 into the digital realm.
The decision underscores three important points. First, public figures enjoy sole and exclusive control over their identity, and unauthorised exploitation of their persona is actionable. Second, courts are actively adapting procedural frameworks to admit encrypted electronic records, ensuring evidentiary authenticity in AI-related disputes. Third, interim injunctions remain an indispensable remedy to arrest reputational harm in fast-moving digital environments where deepfakes can spread and cause irreversible damage before trial.
This ruling is a significant development for future disputes involving synthetic media and AI-generated impersonation. It reinforces that Indian law will not tolerate the weaponisation of artificial intelligence to distort public discourse, manipulate democratic processes, or misappropriate individual identity for commercial gain. The matter is listed for further hearing in October 2026, where broader questions of liability, damages, and platform accountability may fall for consideration.
