Bombay High Court: In the present application, actor Akshay Kumar sought protection of his personality rights, privacy rights, and the right to live with dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, as well as protection of his moral rights under the Copyright Act, 1957. A Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., while granting ex parte interim relief, held that Akshay Kumar possessed an inherent and enforceable right to control, protect, and commercially exploit his personality, and that any unauthorised use constituted a violation of both his personality/publicity rights and his fundamental rights under the Constitution. The Court, therefore, directed that such content be removed from the public domain immediately, in both Akshay Kumar’s and the larger public interest.
Background:
The plaintiff, Akshay Hari Om Bhatia, professionally known as Akshay Kumar, filed the present suit seeking protection of his personality rights, right to privacy, and right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution, along with his moral rights under the Copyright Act, 1957. He used the screen name “Akshay Kumar” since the beginning of his career spanning over 35 years and became widely identified by it. He alleged that these rights were infringed through unauthorised use, commercial exploitation, and misrepresentation on social media, e-commerce platforms, and across the internet by various entities, some of whom were named as defendants.
Akshay Kumar submitted that his name, screen name, signature, image, likeness, voice, tone, distinctive performance, appearance, and mannerisms became uniquely identifiable with him in the public’s mind. He pointed to specific instances of infringement, including AI-generated deepfake videos falsely depicting him in roles such as Maharishi Valmiki and Yogi Adityanath, unauthorised voice cloning, impersonation, and sale of merchandise bearing his likeness. These acts misled the public, caused reputational harm, and posed risks to his family.
He further highlighted additional misuse, including AI-generated images designed to ridicule and demean him, unauthorized chatbots and voice clones impersonating him, and impersonation profiles on social media. Defendants were also found selling merchandise like posters, t-shirts, mugs, and bobbleheads featuring his persona. It was alleged that these activities were not only unauthorised but also deceptive, leading the public to falsely believe in his endorsement of such ventures, including betting and gambling platforms.
Given the gravity and scale of the violations, Akshay Kumar pressed for urgent ex parte interim reliefs. He argued that issuing notice would allow further harm and defeat the purpose of the application. He relied on Rule 3(1) of the Information Technology Rules, 2021, which mandated intermediaries to prevent misleading and impersonating content. Accordingly, he sought protection of all facets of his personality and requested immediate takedown of infringing content and disclosure of infringers’ details to prevent further exploitation and safeguard public interest.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that the morphing was so sophisticated and deceptive that it was virtually impossible to discern they were not genuine. The Court highlighted that the deepfake video of Akshay Kumar making communally inflammatory statements and statements about Rishi Valmiki was deeply concerning, with grave consequences. The Court emphasised that such content violated Akshay Kumar’s personality and moral rights, posed a threat to his family’s safety, and could adversely impact society and public order.
The Court held that Akshay Kumar possessed an inherent and enforceable right to control, protect, and commercially exploit his personality, and that any unauthorised use constituted a violation of both his personality/publicity rights and his fundamental rights under the Constitution. Hence, the Court found that a case for granting ex parte ad interim relief was made out, and that the grant of injunction would be defeated by delay in issuing notice.
The Court found merit in the submissions advanced by Akshay Kumar and noted that, apart from the identifiable infringers, there were several other entities whose identities remained unknown, concealed, or difficult to trace. Taking into account the clandestine, pervasive, and continuing nature of these infringing activities and the persistent harm being caused, the Court observed that Akshay Kumar was justified in impleading Defendant 1 (John Doe) to collectively represent such unidentified persons.
The Court, thus granted Akshay Kumar ex parte interim relief and ordered that Defendants 1, 8—13, and 16—17, along with their agents, servants, associates, and any person claiming through or under them, were to be restrained from violating his rights by infringing, utilising, or misappropriating his personality rights and/or moral rights in any manner. The restraint extended to using, exploiting, or imitating any of his indicia name (including screen name “Akshay Kumar”), voice, image, likeness, distinctive performance, appearance and mannerisms, and signature across any medium, including AI-generated content, deepfake videos, voice-cloned audio, morphed visuals, metaverse environments, and future formats.
The Court directed Defendants 1, 8—13, and 16—17 to immediately remove or disable access to the infringing content, as well as similar content misusing Akshay Kumar’s indicia. The Court further directed Defendants 2 to 4 to take down all infringing content within one week of receiving the order and to act similarly upon future notification, subject to their right to raise objections.
The Court further directed Defendants 5 to 7 to remove all infringing content within one week and to comply with future takedown requests, subject to objections. The Court also directed Defendants 2 to 7 to furnish basic subscriber or seller information upon request, and Defendants 18 and 19 to provide domain registration details, including IP addresses and registrant names, to enable Akshay Kumar to take further steps.
The Court ordered that the advocates for Akshay Kumar were to serve notice of this Order on the Defendants forthwith and file an Affidavit of Service on the next date. The Court further permitted compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by email, considering the large number of Defendants and absence of contact details for some.
Consequently, for Defendants with postal addresses, the Court directed that compliance was also to be affected by speed post service within three weeks of the order being made available. The matter was accordingly listed for 12-11-2025.
[Akshay Hari Om Bhatia v. John Doe, Interim Application (L) No. 33184 of 2025, decided on 15-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Birendra Saraf, Senior Advocate a/w Janay Jain, Monisha Mane Bhangale, Bijal Vora & Chandragupta Patil i/b Parinam Law Associates.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
