3 months ago
2
The communicative truthful far: The High Court of Delhi issued a announcement connected January 21, 2026, to histrion Salman Khan connected an exertion filed by a China-based AI dependable procreation level seeking to vacate an interim injunction protecting the actor’s property rights. While the main substance was heard connected January 23 by the Joint Registrar (Judicial), the Chinese app’s exertion is listed for February 27.
Who is John Doe?
The archetypal suit named 28 defendants, including large exertion companies specified arsenic Apple Inc., Google LLC, Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, X, e-commerce platforms including Amazon India and Flipkart, and intermediaries similar Telegram FZ LLC. Mr. Khan besides sought an injunction against chartless persons, joined arsenic Defendant No. 1 (’John Doe’ oregon ‘Ashok Kumar’), a procedural instrumentality that allows courts to pass ex-parte orders wherever defendants cannot beryllium identified.
The Chinese AI level was aboriginal added arsenic Defendant No. 35, though it is yet to beryllium formally impleaded pursuing the bid of the Joint Registrar (Judicial).
How bash property rights operate?
In K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court recognised privateness arsenic a cardinal close nether Article 21. Courts person since held that unauthorised commercialized exploitation of an individual’s persona whitethorn infringe the close to life. Personality rights recognise the economical worth of identity, peculiarly for nationalist figures, and are chiseled from statutory intelligence spot rights.
In a 2025 bid involving Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, the Delhi High Court noted that unauthorised usage of a celebrity’s individuality could origin commercialized harm. Courts person restrained mendacious impersonation, unauthorised usage of images and names by websites and AI tools, and the instauration of manipulated oregon inappropriate content.
While Article 19(1)(g) guarantees Indian citizens the close to behaviour business, this close is taxable to tenable restrictions. Courts person besides protected creator expression, provided specified works bash not mislead the nationalist oregon connote endorsement. Foreign entities, however, cannot invoke Article 19 earlier Indian courts.
What is the Chinese app context?
In 2020, the Union authorities banned implicit 200 Chinese applications nether Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, citing nationalist information concerns related to information postulation and storage. Although the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, has been passed, enforcement remains pending, leaving gaps successful regulation, peculiarly successful the AI sector. Nandan Nilekani recently said voice-based AI is captious for integer equity and could beryllium similar a UPI-moment for India. A dismissal of the Chinese platform’s exertion could person broader implications for misuse by AI companies.
What astir fees successful personage suits?
Personality rights claims are typically filed nether the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, since celebrities seldom clasp accepted IP rights implicit their identity. Courts have, however, allowed interim injunctions without upfront outgo of tribunal fees successful respective cases, granting extensions nether procedural provisions. This signifier has attracted scrutiny, fixed the precocious marque valuations often cited successful specified suits. Recent scrutiny successful the European Union of generative AI systems specified arsenic Elon Musk’s Grok highlights akin regulatory concerns.
In India, portion the IT Rules, 2021 supply takedown mechanisms, the constricted effectiveness of grievance redressal systems has pushed nationalist figures to question alleviation straight from High Courts. Ensuring extortion against integer impersonation from celebrities to citizens remains a pressing concern.
Virag Gupta is an advocator astatine the Supreme Court.
