The Delhi High Court is set to deliver an important injunction order aimed at safeguarding the personality rights of podcaster and entrepreneur Raj Shamani. The order comes at a time when concerns over deepfakes, impersonation, and unauthorised AI-generated content are growing rapidly, particularly for digital creators and public figures whose online presence is central to their work.

The matter was heard on Monday, during which the court, presided over by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, acknowledged the urgency and seriousness of the issues raised by Shamani. His petition sought to restrain the unlicensed use of his name, image, likeness, voice, and persona — especially in the context of AI-powered impersonation, misleading endorsements, and fraudulent schemes being circulated across digital platforms.

A Case Triggered by Deepfakes, Fake Endorsements, and AI Impersonation

Raj Shamani is among India’s most popular digital creators, known primarily for his podcast ‘Figuring Out,’ where he interviews prominent personalities from business, entertainment, and public life. With a strong presence across platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Spotify, his voice and persona command significant influence. But this visibility has also made him vulnerable to digital misuse.

Shamani’s counsel explained to the court that several deepfake videos mimicking his voice and facial expressions have been circulating on social media. These videos falsely suggest that he endorses certain financial products, crypto trading systems, online courses, and investment schemes. Some even solicit money while pretending to speak on his behalf.

In addition, unauthorised chatbots and Telegram channels have emerged, using his name, photo, and content to create the illusion of direct engagement with him. These channels allegedly provide advice, offer investment tips, and promote questionable schemes — all under the pretence of being officially associated with Shamani. The counsel said these impersonators were exploiting his credibility, misleading the public, and causing reputational damage.

Multiple Digital Platforms Summoned

Recognising the wide digital footprint of these fraudulent activities, the court issued summons to major global platforms: Meta Platforms, Google, YouTube, Telegram, and X Corp.

This places some of the largest internet intermediaries at the centre of the case, as the court examines whether they have adequate mechanisms to detect impersonation, curb AI-generated fakes, and act upon takedown requests promptly.

The court also emphasised that a detailed written order would follow, ensuring clarity on the nature and scope of the injunction.

“We will pass an injunction order,” Justice Arora stated, noting that certain elements of Shamani’s prayers warranted immediate protection, though others required a more nuanced, process-driven approach in future hearings.

Unauthorized use of content and the rise of digital exploitation

The counsel also highlighted another growing issue: the unauthorised use of video clips, scripts, and podcast snippets from Shamani’s show. These clips are being re-uploaded by third-party YouTube channels without permission or attribution, often cut and edited to generate engagement and advertisement revenue.

Some channels, the court was told, were even using hashtags connected to Shamani’s brand and name to increase visibility, piggybacking on his popularity to generate traffic and mislead viewers into believing the accounts were affiliated with him.

While the use of copyrighted content falls under intellectual property violations, the misuse of persona and voice — particularly through AI — touches upon personality rights, an increasingly critical field of law in the digital age.

Court’s view on hashtags, memes, and parody

Justice Arora clarified that the court would not pass sweeping directives on every aspect immediately. For example, the issue of hashtags, the court noted, is complicated because they are used not only by impersonators but also by fans and audiences in good faith. Issuing a blanket ban at this stage could interfere with legitimate user activity and freedom of expression.

Similarly, the court said it would not curtail parody or satirical videos unless they crossed the threshold into impersonation or fraud. Parody, it said, is a protected form of expression, and courts must balance personality rights with artistic and humorous expression.

The judge advised Shamani’s counsel to raise some of these issues in subsequent proceedings if they sought targeted relief.

Understanding the legal terrain: personality rights and right to publicity

The case highlights what Indian courts have increasingly been grappling with — the contours of “personality rights,” sometimes referred to as the “right to publicity.” This right grants individuals control over their name, image, likeness, signature, voice, and other attributes that are distinctly identifiable.

With generative AI now capable of replicating voices, faces, and expressions with alarming accuracy, these rights have become far more vulnerable and far more consequential. Misuse of AI tools to create deepfake videos or simulate celebrity endorsements constitutes not only theft of identity but also fraud, deception, and reputational harm.

Shamani’s case represents one of the most prominent instances of an Indian digital creator taking legal recourse against AI impersonation.

A rising trend: celebrities turning to courts for digital identity protection

The Delhi High Court has recently been witnessing a surge in petitions filed by public figures seeking protection from AI-generated misuse. In the past few months, the court has granted interim relief to prominent individuals including:

• Aishwarya Rai Bachchan
• Abhishek Bachchan
• Jaya Bachchan
• Hrithik Roshan
• Karan Johar
• Kumar Sanu
• Akkineni Nagarjuna
• Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
• Journalist Sudhir Chaudhary

These celebrities approached the court after deepfakes, impersonation videos, and unlicensed AI clones began circulating online, often showcasing them endorsing products or making statements they never authorised.

This pattern reflects not only the explosion of AI but also the inadequacy of existing digital safeguards — prompting courts to fill the regulatory vacuum with case-by-case protections.

A significant step toward modernising digital rights enforcement

For Raj Shamani, the court’s forthcoming injunction is a critical step toward reclaiming control over his identity in the digital world. For the broader creator community, the case may become a reference point in shaping the legal boundaries governing AI-generated material, impersonation, and unauthorised use of personal likeness.

As Justice Arora’s detailed order is awaited, it is clear that the judiciary is becoming increasingly proactive in addressing the evolving challenges posed by AI to personal autonomy. The ruling is likely to shape future conversations around digital identity, content moderation, platform accountability, and the rights of individuals navigating the new frontier of AI-driven media manipulation.

This case, and others like it, signal the beginning of a more assertive legal framework in India — one that attempts to balance technology’s potential with the need to protect individuals from misuse, exploitation, and deception in an increasingly virtual world.