Kriti Sanon approaches Delhi High Court seeking protection against AI-generated impersonation, unauthorised use of identity

Kriti Sanon has asked the Delhi High Court to protect her personality and publicity rights in digital spaces. She alleges that her name, image, likeness and other parts of her identity are being used without permission. The request matters because online content can spread quickly and make unauthorised identity use difficult to control.

Her plea is broader than protection against ordinary photographs. It also covers alleged AI-generated content and digital impersonation. The article places these concerns alongside fake endorsements, deepfakes and other digitally created material that can imitate public figures.

The case was heard by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav. The court asked Sanon’s counsel to submit relevant judgments, research papers and other material. It plans a comprehensive order after reviewing them, with the next hearing listed for October 29.

Personality and publicity rights generally protect identifiable parts of an individual from being used or represented without authorisation. The article specifically connects them with a person’s name, image, likeness and other aspects of identity. They matter because a recognisable identity can carry personal and commercial value.

For example, a celebrity’s photograph, name or likeness could appear in promotional material without approval. The article describes such uses as possible commercial exploitation. It also places AI-generated content, deepfakes and digital impersonation within the growing disputes around identity protection.

The legal boundaries are still being examined in Sanon’s case. The Delhi High Court asked her counsel to provide judgments, research papers and other material on the relevant legal questions. It indicated that a comprehensive order would follow its review.

The protection Sanon seeks is broad. Her plea covers the unauthorised use of her name, image, likeness and other aspects of her identity. It also addresses alleged AI-generated content and digital impersonation, showing that the dispute is not limited to traditional photographs or advertisements.

The article gives several examples of the wider digital problem. Courts are dealing with AI-generated content, deepfakes, fake endorsements and impersonation involving celebrities and public figures. Digitally created images, videos and other material can closely imitate a real person, potentially making unauthorised uses appear convincing.

This broader scope reflects changing technology. Sanon’s legal team must place relevant judgments, research papers and other material before the Delhi High Court. The court said it would issue a comprehensive order after examining that material, and listed the matter for October 29.

When a public figure’s identity is used without permission, the person may argue that their identity has been unauthorisedly represented or commercially exploited. The article describes personality and publicity rights as addressing precisely this concern. A name, image or likeness can become part of promotional material without the individual’s approval.

A concrete example is a fake endorsement. A digitally created image or video could closely imitate a celebrity and suggest that the person supports a product. The article also mentions deepfakes and digital impersonation, which can make such material look authentic even when it was not authorised.

The immediate consequence described is legal action and court scrutiny. Sanon has approached the Delhi High Court, which requested supporting judgments and research. The court will consider the legal issues before issuing a comprehensive order. The article does not state a final remedy or damages.

Courts are being asked to address AI impersonation because digital tools can create images, videos and other content that closely imitate public figures. This creates a harder identity problem than a plainly copied photograph. The central question becomes whether a convincing digital likeness was created or used without permission.

The article identifies several connected examples: AI-generated content, deepfakes, digital impersonation and fake endorsements. A fabricated video or image could make a celebrity appear to say or support something. These examples matter because viewers may encounter the material online without knowing whether the person authorised it.

The issue is now part of a broader legal trend. The article says unauthorised commercial use of celebrity names and images is increasingly prominent, while the Delhi High Court has heard several recent cases involving celebrities and public figures. Sanon’s case may add to this developing examination of identity rights and generative AI.

The article focuses on personality and publicity rights and does not name specific alternative legal tools. In a broader legal analysis, privacy law may address misuse of personal identity or information. Trademark law may matter if a protected name or brand is used deceptively. These possibilities depend on the jurisdiction and evidence.

Copyright law could be relevant where protected photographs, videos, recordings or other creative works are copied. Consumer-protection law may become relevant if an advertisement falsely suggests that a celebrity endorsed a product. A fake endorsement could therefore raise several different legal questions at once, rather than only one identity-rights question.

These are general possibilities, not findings in Sanon’s case. The reported proceedings concern her request for protection against alleged unauthorised identity use, AI-generated content and digital impersonation. The Delhi High Court has asked for judgments and research material before issuing a comprehensive order.

Generative AI learns patterns from existing data and can produce new images, videos or voices that resemble a particular person. With suitable examples, systems can imitate facial appearance, speech patterns or vocal qualities. The article does not explain these technical steps, but it notes that digitally created material can closely imitate public figures.

That imitation challenges older ideas of identity and consent. A traditional photograph usually has a clear source and creator. AI-generated content may instead create a new image or video that never existed before while making a real person appear present, speaking or endorsing something. Deepfakes and digital impersonation illustrate this problem.

The legal response is still developing. Sanon’s plea asks for protection against alleged AI-generated content and impersonation. The Delhi High Court requested judgments, research papers and other material, then listed the matter for October 29. Its later order may help address these emerging questions.