Bombay HC Uses Personality Rights to Order Removal of AI Deepfake Content: Shilpa Shetty Case Explained

The Bombay High Court has ordered the removal of AI-generated deepfake content involving actress Shilpa Shetty Kundra, holding that personality rights serve as a shield for women against privacy violations in the digital age. The Court directed multiple social media platforms and websites to take down the offending content, recognising that deepfake technology poses a unique and severe threat to the dignity, reputation, and privacy of individuals, particularly women. This ruling advances the developing jurisprudence on personality rights in India and establishes an important precedent for how courts can use this doctrine to combat AI-generated non-consensual content.

What Are Personality Rights Under Indian Law

Personality rights, also referred to as the right of publicity or image rights, protect an individual's right to control the commercial and non-commercial use of their name, likeness, image, voice, and other identifiable attributes. While India does not have a specific statute governing personality rights, courts have recognised them as flowing from the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution (as affirmed by the Supreme Court in KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017) and the right to life and dignity. The Delhi High Court has been particularly active in developing personality rights jurisprudence, granting protection to celebrities including Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor, and Jackie Shroff against unauthorised use of their likeness. The Bombay High Court's ruling in the Shilpa Shetty case extends this protection specifically to combat deepfake content, recognising that AI-generated manipulation of a person's likeness constitutes a violation of personality rights regardless of whether the content is used commercially.

The Court's Reasoning: Privacy, Dignity, and Gender-Specific Harm

The Bombay High Court's order is notable for its explicit recognition that deepfake content causes gender-specific harm. The Court observed that women are disproportionately targeted by deepfake technology, with the vast majority of non-consensual deepfake content being sexually explicit material created without the subject's knowledge or consent. The Court held that personality rights function as a protective shield for women against such privacy violations, going beyond the traditional commercial exploitation framework to encompass dignity-based protection. The ruling draws on the constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14, the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, and the right to dignity that the Supreme Court has read into Article 21. The Court also referenced the IT Act provisions on obscene content and identity theft, noting that while these statutes address certain aspects of deepfake harm, the personality rights doctrine provides a broader and more flexible remedy.

How This Differs from Statutory Remedies Under IT Act and BNS

Victims of deepfake content have statutory remedies under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (Sections 66C for identity theft, 66D for cheating by personation, and 67 for obscene content) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Section 356 for defamation and Section 78 for identity theft). However, these statutory provisions have limitations. Criminal proceedings are slow, require proving intent beyond reasonable doubt, and do not provide immediate injunctive relief. The IT Rules 2026 mandate a three-hour takedown for deepfake content, but enforcement depends on platform cooperation. The personality rights approach offers several advantages: it allows victims to seek urgent civil injunctions from High Courts, the standard of proof is lower (prima facie case for interim relief), and courts can issue sweeping orders directing all platforms and intermediaries to remove the content. The Bombay HC order demonstrates that personality rights provide the most effective judicial tool for obtaining immediate, comprehensive removal of deepfake content across multiple platforms simultaneously.

Growing Judicial Consensus on Deepfake Protection Across India

The Bombay HC ruling is part of an emerging judicial consensus across Indian High Courts on the need for robust protection against deepfake content. The Delhi High Court directed removal of a deepfake video involving MP Shashi Tharoor. The Karnataka High Court ordered takedown of AI-manipulated content targeting the Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari and his family. The Gujarat High Court issued notices to Meta, Google, X, Reddit, and Scribd on a PIL concerning deepfake and AI-generated content, asking these platforms to integrate with the government's SAHYOG portal. These orders, taken together, establish that Indian courts will act swiftly and decisively to protect individuals from deepfake harm, regardless of the platform or the identity of the creator. The courts have consistently treated deepfake content as a serious violation warranting immediate judicial intervention rather than leaving victims to pursue slower statutory remedies.

Key Takeaways for Individuals and Platforms

The Bombay High Court's ruling strengthens the legal toolkit available to deepfake victims in India. Individuals targeted by AI-generated non-consensual content should consider filing a personality rights-based petition in the High Court alongside complaints under the IT Act and criminal law provisions. The combined approach ensures both immediate injunctive relief and long-term accountability. For social media platforms, the ruling reinforces the obligation to comply with court-ordered takedowns promptly and to develop better detection and reporting mechanisms for deepfake content. The recognition of personality rights as a gender-specific protective shield is particularly significant, as it acknowledges the disproportionate harm that women face from deepfake technology and provides a constitutional basis for enhanced judicial protection. As deepfake technology becomes more accessible and realistic, the personality rights doctrine is likely to become an increasingly important tool in Indian courts for protecting individual dignity in the digital age.