NEW DELHI, India — The Delhi High Court has granted interim protection to Bollywood actress Tabu against the unauthorised use of her identity, name, image, voice and other personality attributes, including through artificial intelligence, deepfakes and face-morphing technologies. Justice Jyoti Singh also directed major digital platforms including Google, Meta, X and Reddit to remove or disable access to more than 150 identified URLs carrying content allegedly exploiting the actor’s personality rights.
- Delhi HC protection: The court restrained unauthorised exploitation of Tabu’s name, image, voice and other personality attributes.
- 150+ URLs targeted: Google, Meta, X, Reddit and other platforms were directed to act against specified online content.
- AI misuse covered: The injunction specifically includes AI-generated content, deepfakes, face morphing and GIFs.
- Identity details sought: Certain platforms and domain service providers were ordered to disclose subscriber and IP log information.
Delhi HC protects Tabu’s personality rights
The order came after Tabu approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection against alleged commercial and unauthorised exploitation of her identity online. Her petition raised concerns over fake event-booking accounts, merchandise, fabricated statements and manipulated or AI-generated content.
The court found that Tabu’s name and stage name, along with her image, voice, likeness and other distinctive attributes, have acquired a unique identity that the public associates with the actress. Justice Singh held that the actor had established a prima facie case for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.
AI-generated and manipulated content under court’s scrutiny
A significant part of the case involved allegations concerning AI-generated obscene images, videos and GIFs. According to the plaint, excerpts from Tabu’s films, interviews and public appearances were allegedly manipulated and circulated online.
The allegations also included claims that certain movie scenes were edited, slowed or zoomed to focus on intimate portions before being circulated online to attract viewers and generate revenue.
The court observed that the alleged dissemination of AI-generated videos using deliberately edited material from films, public appearances or interviews could cause serious harm to the actress’s goodwill, reputation and commercial value.
Injunction covers deepfakes, face morphing and GIFs
The court’s restraint extends beyond conventional unauthorised photographs or videos. It specifically covers misuse involving Artificial Intelligence, Generative AI, Machine Learning, deepfakes, face morphing and GIFs.
The directions apply across websites, mobile applications, social media platforms, the Metaverse and other physical or virtual mediums. Defendants, including unidentified John Does, have been restrained from using or exploiting Tabu’s personality attributes and publicity rights without consent or authorisation.
The protected attributes include the stage name “Tabu”, her real name Tabassum Jamal Hashmi, voice recordings and duplications, signatures and initials, photographs, images and movie stills.
Google, Meta and other platforms ordered to remove URLs
The Delhi High Court issued platform-specific directions for removing or disabling access to identified URLs. Google LLC was directed to act against 21 URLs in one set, eight in another and five in a third set, within 36 hours of receiving the order.
Meta Platforms Inc. was directed to remove or disable 73 URLs in Document-A, 28 URLs in Document-B and five URLs in Document-C within the same timeframe. X Corp. was directed to remove three identified URLs, while eBay Inc. was directed to take down URLs listed at serial numbers 15 to 20 in Document-C.
Reddit Inc. was also directed to take down specified URLs. Taken together, the order covers more than 150 specifically identified URLs across the platforms and other online material covered by the directions.
Court seeks subscriber and IP information
In another important direction, the court ordered Google, Meta, X, Reddit and GoDaddy, as applicable, to disclose Basic Subscriber Information and IP log details to Tabu.
The information could help identify individuals or entities allegedly operating accounts or publishing material connected with the alleged misuse of the actress’s identity and personality rights.
Fake booking account and merchandise also part of dispute
Tabu’s case also concerns an Instagram account that allegedly offered bookings for her appearances and performances. According to the plaint, the actress had no association with the account and had not authorised anyone to make bookings on her behalf.
The account was alleged to have around 2,000 followers and to have used Tabu’s name, photographs and video clips in a manner that could create an impression of an association with the actress.
The petition also raised concerns about websites allegedly selling mugs, posters, calendars, hoodies, sweatshirts and other merchandise featuring her photographs. Her counsel argued that such activity created an unauthorised commercial connection with the actress and exploited the value associated with her persona.
Fabricated statement described as an egregious act
The actress also complained about an online publication carrying a statement purportedly attributed to her. According to her case, she had never made the statement and her team had already issued clarifications to leading newspapers.
The court described the continued publication of the disputed statement despite the denial as an “egregious act”, observing that its continuation appeared intended to sensationalise the material and generate monetary gains.
The concerned publisher has been restrained from circulating or disseminating the statement and directed to remove it from its platforms within three days of receiving the court’s order.
Delhi HC recognises wider impact of personality rights
The court referred to earlier Delhi High Court decisions including D.M. Entertainment v. Baby Gift House, Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India and Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store while considering the protection of personality rights.
The court observed that unauthorised use of a famous person’s name, image or distinctive attributes for commercial purposes can infringe those rights, dilute the person’s unique identity and provide unearned commercial gains to third parties.
Justice Singh also noted that the consequences of such misuse can extend beyond financial loss. According to the order, unauthorised exploitation may affect privacy, personality and the right to live with dignity.
What happens next in Tabu’s case?
The High Court has registered the plaint as a commercial suit and issued summons to the defendants. The remaining defendants have been directed to file written statements within 30 days of receiving the summons.
The matter concerning discovery, production and inspection of documents has also been taken up. The application seeking discovery and inspection has been issued notice, with the matter listed for December 7, 2026.
The interim injunction will remain operative until the next hearing, subject to further orders of the court. The order is an interim protection and does not finally determine the allegations raised in the suit.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are personality rights in the Tabu case?
Personality rights concern protection against unauthorised exploitation of distinctive attributes associated with an individual, such as their name, image, voice and likeness. In this case, the Delhi High Court considered alleged unauthorised use of such attributes belonging to Tabu.
Does the Delhi HC order cover AI-generated deepfakes?
Yes. The interim restraint specifically covers misuse through AI, Generative AI, Machine Learning, deepfakes, face morphing and GIFs, along with other digital and physical mediums.
Why did the court order platforms to share IP logs?
The court directed certain platforms and service providers to disclose Basic Subscriber Information and IP log details. Such information may assist in identifying persons behind accounts or online material connected with the allegations.
Does the order mean the case has been finally decided?
No. The directions are interim protections. The court found a prima facie case and the likelihood of irreparable harm, but the order does not finally decide the allegations in the commercial suit.
When will the case be heard next?
The application concerning discovery and inspection has been made returnable before the court on December 7, 2026. The interim protection will continue until the next date, subject to further orders.
