Delhi HC Grants Ravi Kishan Ex Parte Injunction Against Pornographic Deepfakes and Personality Rights Violations

The Delhi High Court restrained 32 defendants from exploiting actor-MP Ravi Kishan's name, image and likeness via deepfakes, AI content and pornographic URLs, finding a prima facie case for personality rights protection.

Justice Jyoti Singh, sitting singly at the Delhi High Court (Original Side), on 2 July 2026 granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of actor and Member of Parliament Ravindra Shukla, widely known as Ravi Kishan, restraining 32 defendants from misappropriating his name, image, voice, likeness and other personality attributes. The defendants include unidentified persons, domain name registrars, a radio channel operator, Meta Platforms Inc., Google LLC and X Corp. The court found a prima facie case for protection of personality and publicity rights, holding that balance of convenience lay with the plaintiff and that he was likely to suffer irreparable harm if interim relief were refused. A three-day deadline was set for takedown of 46 specific URLs carrying pornographic and otherwise infringing content.

The Dispute Before the Court

Ravi Kishan has worked in Hindi, Bhojpuri, Telugu, Kannada and Tamil cinema since 1992 and has appeared in over 750 films. His recent films include Laapata Ladies (2023), which was India's official entry at the 97th Academy Awards, and for which he received the Dadasaheb Phalke International Film Festival Award and the IIFA Award for Best Supporting Actor. He has been a Member of Parliament from the Gorakhpur Constituency (UP) since 2014 and holds more than three million Instagram followers.

The suit, registered as CS(COMM) 680/2026, was filed against Defendant No. 1 and a large set of identified and unidentified persons. According to the plaint, multiple strands of infringement were occurring simultaneously. Defendants No. 6 to 20 were uploading pornographic content on various websites using Ravi Kishan's name as a keyword and as part of URLs. Defendant No. 1 had posted vulgar audio-visual content superimposing captions on a video of Ravi Kishan at a religious ceremony, wrongly suggesting he was a political middleman. Profanity-laced voiceovers were placed over an interview clip, portraying him as an incompetent elected representative. AI-generated videos mocked his diction.

Defendant No. 29, a media production and broadcast company owning a radio channel, was alleged to have used his name and likeness for a programme called What is Love with Kavi Kishan on Ishq 104.8 FM — a distortion of his name — without authorisation. Defendants No. 4 and 5 were alleged to have circulated fabricated statements on X and Facebook attributing political and personal opinions to him that he had never made.

The plaintiff's case rested on personality and publicity rights, as well as statutory protections under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957.

Procedural Applications Decided at the Threshold

Several interlocutory applications were taken up on the first date. I.A. 16470/2026 seeking exemption from filing certain documents was allowed subject to just exceptions. I.A. 16468/2026, filed under Order XI Rules 1, 2, 3 and 5 CPC read with Chapter IV of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 and Section 151 CPC, sought discovery by interrogatories and production of documents; notice was issued, with counsel for Meta Platforms Inc. and Google LLC accepting notice on behalf of Defendants No. 30 and 31 respectively.

I.A. 16469/2026, filed under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 CPC, sought leave to file additional documents at a later stage. The court allowed it, directing that any further documents be filed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

I.A. 16471/2026 sought exemption from the pre-institution mediation requirement under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act read with Section 151 CPC. The court granted exemption, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi, (2024) 5 SCC 815, and the Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. RA Perfumery Works Private Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3529. The court noted the facts of the present case and the urgent relief being sought as the basis for granting exemption.

I.A. 16472/2026, seeking leave to file certain documents in a compact disk or pen drive, was also allowed.

The plaint was registered as a suit. Summons were issued, with counsel for Meta Platforms Inc. and Google LLC accepting summons. Remaining defendants were directed to be served through all permissible modes, returnable before the learned Joint Registrar on 13 August 2026. Written statements are to be filed within 30 days of receipt of summons, along with affidavits of admission or denial of documents. The plaintiff may file replications within 30 days of receipt of the written statements.

How the Court Reasoned on the Injunction

On the substantive application for an ex parte ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, Justice Jyoti Singh examined the plaintiff's career and public standing in detail before addressing the legal position.

The court noted that Ravi Kishan's journey in the film industry stretches back to 1992, encompassing memorable roles across multiple industries, including the Bhojpuri debut film Saiyaan Hamar (2003), which was a commercial success, his lead role in the first Bhojpuri ensemble film Ganga (2006) alongside Amitabh Bachchan and Hema Malini which earned over Rs. 35 crores at the box office, and the critically acclaimed Laapata Ladies (2023). His television presence spans mythological dramas, soap operas, and reality shows including Bigg Boss in its inaugural season in 2006, where he was second runner-up. He received the Sansad Ratna Award in 2025 for parliamentary performance.

The court held that Ravi Kishan had the exclusive right to protect the attributes of his personality — name, image, voice, likeness — and to restrain third parties from using and commercially exploiting these attributes without his express permission and authority.

On the legal framework, the court referred to two earlier decisions of the Delhi High Court. In Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3664, and in Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5943, the court had held that unauthorised use of attributes of famous personalities leads not only to commercial detriment but also impacts rights to privacy, personality, and dignity. The court drew on those precedents to conclude that personality rights are judicially recognised and must be protected.

Justice Jyoti Singh found that the content being spread — pornographic material tagged with the plaintiff's name, AI-generated videos, deepfake audio-visual content, and fabricated attributions of political statements — was causing irreparable damage to the plaintiff's image and reputation. The court was satisfied that a prima facie case was made out, balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff, and irreparable harm would result if injunction were refused.

Directions and Takedown Order

The court issued a three-pronged restraint effective until the next date of hearing.

Defendants No. 1 to 20 and 29, including John Does and all others acting on their behalf, were restrained from violating the plaintiff's personality and publicity rights by using, exploiting or misappropriating his name “Ravindra Shukla” and “Ravi Kishan”, his image and likeness, and any other attributes of his persona exclusively identifiable with him, for any commercial or personal gain. The restraint expressly covers use through any technology, including Artificial Intelligence, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, and Deepfakes, and through any medium including physical, virtual and social media platforms.

The same defendants were further restrained from posting any audio-visual content, videos or other material that is vulgar, obscene or pornographic and uses any attribute of the plaintiff's personality, again covering the full range of AI and digital technologies and all media formats.

On the takedown direction, Defendants No. 1, 3 to 20 and 29, along with the respective domain name registrars (Defendants No. 21 to 28), were directed to take down all 46 URLs listed in Annexure-A to the order within three days of receipt of a copy of the order. If any of those defendants fail to comply, the plaintiff may bring this to the notice of Meta Platforms Inc. (Defendant No. 30), Google LLC (Defendant No. 31) and X Corp. (Defendant No. 32), as appropriate, and those intermediaries were directed to initiate steps to take down the URLs concerning them within 72 hours of receiving such intimation from the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was directed to comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within two weeks from the date of the order.

The matter is next listed before the court on 16 October 2026 for hearing of the injunction application.

Order

Justice Jyoti Singh allowed I.A. 16467/2026 and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction against Defendants No. 1 to 20 and 29, their associates, and the platform intermediaries. Forty-six URLs specified in Annexure-A are to be taken down within three days by the concerned defendants and domain name registrars, failing which the plaintiff may invoke the 72-hour intermediary compliance mechanism against Meta Platforms Inc., Google LLC and X Corp. The exemption from pre-institution mediation under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act was granted. All remaining defendants are to be served and their written statements are returnable before the Joint Registrar on 13 August 2026. The suit is CS(COMM) 680/2026, decided on 2 July 2026.