AI Voice Cloning & Deepfakes in India: Legal Rights and Remedies

An Indian artist whose voice, face or identity has been copied using artificial intelligence may have remedies under personality rights, privacy law, passing off, copyright and performers’ rights, and the Information Technology Rules. The right response depends on how the material was created, how it is being used, and the harm it is causing.

There is a particular kind of silence when an artist first hears an AI-generated version of their own voice.

The voice is familiar. The pronunciation is right. The pauses are convincing. Sometimes even the emotional quality of the performance seems authentic. But the words are not theirs, the song is not theirs, or the endorsement is for a product they have never agreed to promote.

An actor may discover that their face has been placed into a video they never appeared in. A singer may find an online advertisement in which an artificial version of their voice recommends a financial product. Another performer may discover that an AI platform allows users to generate tracks imitating their singing style and distribute them commercially.

The first reaction is often personal. The artist feels that something belonging to them has been taken.

The legal questions come shortly afterwards. Can the content be removed? Can the person responsible be identified? Can the platform be compelled to act? Is an injunction available before the damage spreads further? And can the artist recover compensation?

Indian law provides several possible answers. However, there is no single statute that resolves every form of AI impersonation, and not every imitation of a famous person is unlawful.

The legal task is to identify exactly what has been misused, establish the nature of the harm, and select a remedy that fits the facts.

1. Does India Have a Personality Rights Act?

No. India does not have a standalone Personality Rights Act that comprehensively codifies the rights of actors, singers, performers and other individuals against unauthorised commercial exploitation of their identity.

Nevertheless, Indian courts have recognised and protected personality and publicity interests through established legal principles.

These interests concern the ability of a person to control, within the limits of the law, the commercial exploitation of identifiable aspects of their personality. They may include a name, photograph, face, voice, signature, distinctive mannerisms or another characteristic strongly associated with that person.

The legal foundation is not confined to one provision.

Article 21 and the Protection of Dignity and Privacy

Article 21 of the Constitution protects life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court’s privacy jurisprudence recognises that an individual’s identity, autonomy and dignity are legally significant interests.

In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a constitutionally protected right.

That judgment did not create a comprehensive statutory right to control every use of one’s image or voice. It nevertheless provides an important constitutional foundation when unauthorised digital impersonation intrudes upon privacy, autonomy or dignity.

Consider an artist whose face is inserted into sexually explicit material. The injury is not simply that somebody has used a photograph without permission. The manipulation may falsely associate the artist with conduct that never occurred, exposing them to humiliation, threats and serious reputational damage.

Such facts raise concerns substantially different from those arising when a newspaper publishes a photograph in a legitimate news report.

Passing Off and Commercial Misrepresentation

Passing off is another important route.

In simple terms, it protects against conduct that misrepresents a commercial connection, endorsement or association in circumstances recognised by the law.

Suppose an actor has never endorsed a particular brand. A seller nevertheless uses an AI-generated video showing the actor apparently recommending its product.

The problem is not merely unauthorised use of the actor’s face. The advertisement may mislead consumers into believing that the actor has approved the product.

Evidence of goodwill, misrepresentation and resulting or likely damage can therefore become important.

This is particularly relevant to commercial endorsements, counterfeit merchandise, fake promotional campaigns and AI-generated advertisements.

The precise requirements of passing off must still be established. A person cannot assume that every unauthorised reference to their identity automatically satisfies them.

The Copyright Act, 1957: Performers’ Rights and Moral Rights

For singers, actors and other performers, the Copyright Act, 1957 provides an additional legal framework.

Section 38A deals with the exclusive rights of performers, subject to the statutory conditions and exceptions. These rights include specified forms of recording, reproduction and commercial exploitation of performances.

Section 38B addresses performers’ moral rights, including the right to be identified as the performer, subject to the statutory framework, and protection against distortion or other specified modifications prejudicial to the performer’s reputation.

These provisions require careful application.

An artist does not automatically own every sound resembling their voice, nor does the Copyright Act create an unrestricted monopoly over a vocal style.

However, where a real performance has been copied, recorded, reproduced or manipulated, the copyright and performers’ rights analysis may be significant.

For example, an AI-generated track might involve several distinct legal questions:

• Was an existing sound recording copied or used as training or reference material?
• Were protected musical or lyrical elements reproduced?
• Was a recorded performance reproduced or otherwise exploited in a manner covered by the Act?
• Is the output being presented as a genuine performance by the artist?
• Does the manipulation raise an issue under the performer’s moral rights?

These questions should not be collapsed into a single claim that the artist owns their voice.

Intermediary Obligations Under the Information Technology Act and Rules

The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 provide another part of the framework.

The rules govern intermediary due diligence, grievance mechanisms and specified obligations concerning unlawful or harmful online content.

The applicable provisions have also changed. The February 2026 amendments introduced specific provisions dealing with synthetically generated information that falsely depicts or portrays a person or real-world event in a manner likely to deceive.

This development deserves particular attention in an article about AI voice cloning and deepfakes.

The legal framework is therefore no longer limited to asking whether an ordinary social media complaint should be forwarded to a platform’s grievance officer. The nature of the synthetic content, the applicable intermediary obligations and the specific facts of the complaint must also be examined.

The important qualification is that these legal routes serve different purposes. A constitutional argument, a passing-off claim, a performers’ rights claim and a request for removal under the IT Rules are not interchangeable.

A carefully prepared case identifies the strongest applicable grounds rather than treating every legal provision as automatically available.

2. What Counts as AI Voice Cloning or a Deepfake?

AI impersonation takes several forms.

Some are crude and easily recognised. Others are sufficiently convincing to mislead ordinary viewers or listeners.

A singer’s voice may be reproduced using a model trained to imitate their vocal characteristics. An actor’s face may be superimposed on another person’s body. A synthetic video may show a public figure apparently making a statement they never made.

The underlying technology is less important legally than the conduct, the resulting representation and the harm.

Consider five recurring situations.

Fake endorsements. An advertisement uses an artist’s face and voice to recommend a product, investment scheme, medicine or financial service without authorisation. The artist may be falsely associated with the product, while consumers may be misled into believing that the endorsement is genuine.

Synthetic songs and voice-cloning platforms. A platform allows users to convert their own recordings into a voice resembling that of a well-known singer. The resulting tracks may be sold, distributed or monetised. The legal analysis may involve personality rights, performers’ rights, copyright in source material and the commercial presentation of the output.

AI chatbots and digital replicas. A service presents a chatbot or avatar as though it were an authorised representation of a particular actor, singer or public figure. The question is not simply whether the service resembles the person. It is whether the name, identity or other attributes are being exploited in a legally objectionable manner, and whether the presentation falsely implies authorisation.

Merchandise and commercial branding. Sellers use a person’s name, photograph, signature, distinctive likeness or other identifiable attributes on products without permission. Depending on the facts, the conduct may support a personality-rights claim, passing off or another applicable intellectual-property claim.

Sexualised or humiliating deepfakes. A person’s face is inserted into explicit imagery or a synthetic video is circulated to suggest that the person engaged in conduct that never occurred. This may raise serious privacy, dignity and reputational concerns, alongside potential remedies under the applicable criminal and information-technology laws.

The distinction between these situations matters.

An advertisement that falsely implies endorsement is not legally identical to a satirical video. A synthetic song that imitates a singer may raise different questions from the unauthorised distribution of an actual sound recording.

A good legal response begins by identifying the conduct accurately.

3. What Have the Delhi and Bombay High Courts Actually Decided?

The recent personality-rights cases are important because they show that Indian courts are prepared to address digital impersonation through injunctions.

They must, however, be read with attention to their procedural stage. An interim injunction protects a claimant pending further proceedings; it is not necessarily a final determination of every allegation against every defendant.

Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi: John Doe Protection

In Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, CS(COMM) 819/2022, the Delhi High Court passed an order on 25 November 2022 protecting the actor’s personality-related interests against unauthorised exploitation.

The proceedings are significant for the use of John Doe, or Ashok Kumar, relief.

In online impersonation cases, the claimant may know that their identity is being exploited but may not know the names of all the individuals responsible. A fake application, anonymous account, ringtone seller or fraudulent website may be operated through an identity that is difficult to establish at the outset.

A John Doe order can provide relief against appropriately described unidentified persons responsible for the infringing conduct, within the scope of the order.

This is a practical advantage. The claimant need not necessarily identify every participant before asking the court to restrain the underlying unlawful activity.

The order does not, however, make every unidentified internet user automatically liable. Nor does it remove the need to establish that particular material falls within the injunction.

Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India: AI, Deepfakes and Commercial Exploitation

In Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., CS(COMM) 652/2023, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Prathiba M. Singh, passed an order on 20 September 2023.

The case is an important authority concerning the unauthorised commercial exploitation of an actor’s personality.

The relief addressed the use of Kapoor’s name, image, likeness, voice, mannerisms and distinctive expression, including the catchphrase “Jhakaas”. The proceedings also addressed technologies and formats such as artificial intelligence, face-morphing, deepfakes and GIFs.

The significance lies in the court’s recognition that personality-related attributes can possess commercial value while also implicating personal dignity.

A familiar face or voice can be used to make a product appear authentic, attract attention or persuade consumers to part with money. When that identity is exploited without permission, the consequences may extend beyond a conventional intellectual-property dispute.

For a working artist, endorsement opportunities may be commercially important. A fraudulent advertisement can falsely associate the artist with a product, undermine genuine commercial arrangements and create confusion about what the artist actually supports.

The case provides a useful foundation for seeking relief against unauthorised digital representations. It should not be read as establishing that every unauthorised depiction, parody or reference to an actor is automatically unlawful.

Jackie Shroff’s 2024 Proceedings: Protection Has Limits

In 2024, the Delhi High Court considered personality-rights claims brought by Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf, professionally known as Jackie Shroff.

The proceedings addressed unauthorised commercial uses of his identity, including AI-generated material and chatbots, as well as other distinctive personality attributes.

The case is important for another reason: it demonstrates why personality-rights litigation cannot be approached as a demand to erase every reference to a public figure.

The court’s treatment of particular creative uses illustrates the need to distinguish unlawful exploitation from expression that may legitimately draw upon public material, including interviews, photographs and commentary.

A public figure cannot assume that every creative work mentioning or depicting them must be removed. The context, purpose, manner of use and applicable legal protections matter.

That distinction is essential. An AI-generated advertisement falsely suggesting that an actor endorses a product presents a different legal problem from a critical article discussing the actor’s career.

The Jackie Shroff proceedings are therefore useful both for the protection they recognise and for the limits they demonstrate.

Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP: The AI Voice-Cloning Injunction

The Bombay High Court’s decision in Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2445, dated 26 July 2024, is particularly important for singers and other performers.

Justice R.I. Chagla considered allegations concerning AI platforms and other defendants that were using or enabling the unauthorised reproduction of Singh’s voice and associated personality attributes.

The case involved AI voice-cloning technology capable of converting audio into a voice resembling that of the singer, alongside alleged commercial exploitation of other identifiable attributes.

The court granted an ad-interim injunction addressing the unauthorised exploitation complained of in the proceedings.

The case marked a significant development in the judicial treatment of AI voice cloning in India.

For performers, the distinction is crucial. A person’s voice is not merely an abstract feature. It may be closely associated with their professional identity, performance history and commercial value.

Nevertheless, the legal claim must still be framed carefully. A singer cannot assume that every work inspired by their style infringes copyright or personality rights. The relevant questions include whether the actual voice, a protected performance, identifiable personality attributes or protected source material have been appropriated, and how the resulting material is being used.

The Arijit Singh proceedings demonstrate that AI voice cloning can be addressed through existing legal principles without waiting for a dedicated AI personality-rights statute.

Asha Bhosle v. Mayk Inc.: The Importance of Performers’ Moral Rights

In Asha Bhosle v. Mayk Inc., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 3485, the Bombay High Court considered a claim concerning the alleged unauthorised exploitation of the veteran singer’s voice and other personality attributes through AI-related services and online material.

The relevant interim proceedings were before Justice Arif S. Doctor in September 2025.

The order is significant because the legal analysis included Section 38B of the Copyright Act, 1957, concerning performers’ moral rights.

The case brings an important issue into focus.

A synthetic recording that sounds like a singer may be presented to the public as though it were an authentic performance. That can create a false association between the singer and words, lyrics, musical arrangements or interpretations that the singer never performed.

Depending on the facts, the dispute may therefore involve more than the commercial value of the singer’s identity. It may also raise questions about the integrity and attribution of a performance.

Section 38B must still be applied according to its actual terms. It does not confer an unlimited right to prohibit every imitation or stylistic resemblance. The existence of a particular performance, the nature of the alleged distortion, the statutory conditions and the relevant evidence remain important.

The Asha Bhosle proceedings are best understood as an important interim development in the protection of performers against alleged AI-enabled misuse, not as a final judicial resolution of every possible dispute involving synthetic voices.

Protection Has Extended to Other Public Figures

The legal developments have not been confined to these five proceedings.

Subsequent interim orders have addressed personality-rights claims involving other public figures, including Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Suniel Shetty.

The Delhi High Court’s 2025 proceedings involving Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, for example, addressed the unauthorised commercial use of identifiable personality attributes and the alleged presentation of a website as an official or authorised source.

These developments reinforce the practical importance of personality-rights litigation in cases involving online impersonation, fraudulent commercial association and synthetic media.

The precise scope of relief nevertheless varies from case to case. A lawyer should examine the actual order relied upon rather than assume that every judgment grants identical protection.

4. What Can an Artist Do Under the IT Rules?

The Information Technology Rules deserve a separate discussion because they may offer a practical route to urgent relief.

The relevant framework is not static. The February 2026 amendments introduced provisions specifically addressing synthetically generated information that falsely depicts or portrays a person or real-world event by misrepresenting identity, voice, conduct, action or statements in a manner likely to deceive.

The amendments also prescribe a two-hour response period for certain complaints under Rule 3(2)(b), including complaints concerning specified sexual imagery and electronic impersonation involving artificially morphed images.

This is a significant development, but the scope of the provision must be respected.

The two-hour period should not be described as a universal deadline requiring every platform to remove every AI-generated reference to a public figure within two hours. The provision applies to the categories and circumstances specified in the rules.

Similarly, the new synthetic-information provisions must be read according to their wording, applicable obligations and exceptions.

An artist or their representative should identify the exact content, the relevant platform and the applicable rule before asserting a particular deadline.

How Should a Takedown Notice Be Drafted?

A useful notice should do more than express outrage.

It should identify the exact URL, account, video, audio file or webpage in question. It should explain which aspects of the artist’s identity have been used, why the representation is unauthorised, and whether it creates a false endorsement, impersonation, reputational injury or another legally relevant harm.

Where relevant, the notice should identify the applicable personality-rights authorities, copyright or performers’ rights provisions, and provisions of the IT Rules.

The notice should also request preservation of relevant evidence, including account information and available records relating to the publication or monetisation of the content, subject to applicable law.

If the content involves sexualised impersonation or another category specifically covered by the rules, the complaint should identify that fact clearly.

A precise notice helps the platform assess the complaint. It also creates a contemporaneous record of what was reported, when it was reported and how the intermediary responded.

However, a takedown notice does not guarantee removal in every case. The platform may dispute the legal basis, consider an applicable exception or require further information. The response must be assessed against the applicable statutory duties and the circumstances of the complaint.

Where a platform fails to act despite a strong legal basis for removal, judicial relief may become necessary.

5. Can an Artist Obtain a John Doe Order?

Yes, in an appropriate case.

A John Doe or Ashok Kumar application may be particularly useful when the artist cannot immediately identify all the people responsible for the misuse.

Suppose an AI-generated advertisement appears on several social media accounts. The uploader’s identity is hidden, the original video has been copied to other accounts, and the advertisement links to an external website.

Proceedings against one identified account may not adequately address the continuing problem.

The artist may seek an injunction against identified defendants and appropriately described unknown persons engaged in the complained-of conduct.

Depending on the pleadings and the court’s directions, the application may also seek orders requiring relevant intermediaries or service providers to disable access to identified material or provide information necessary to identify the persons responsible, subject to applicable law.

What Is a Dynamic Injunction?

A dynamic injunction is intended to address the problem of substantially similar infringing material appearing at new locations after an initial order.

This can matter in online impersonation cases because a video removed from one account may reappear under a different username or URL.

The precise relief available depends on the court’s order. A claimant should not assume that a dynamic injunction automatically covers every new item of content, every domain or every person who later uses similar material.

New URLs and relevant developments should be documented and brought to the attention of the appropriate intermediary or court in accordance with the order.

Can a Court Order a Website or Domain to Be Suspended?

In an appropriate case, a court may direct relevant service providers or intermediaries to take specified action against a website, domain or online service involved in the alleged infringement.

The nature of the direction depends on the facts, the parties before the court and the legal basis for the requested relief.

A domain-level restriction is a significant measure. It should be sought where the evidence supports it and where narrower relief would be inadequate, rather than as an automatic response to every disputed post.

The practical objective is to stop the unlawful activity while keeping the relief sufficiently precise to avoid unnecessary interference with lawful material.

6. Can an Artist Claim Damages?

Potentially, yes. But damages require a different evidentiary approach from an urgent injunction.

At the beginning of a case, the immediate concern may be preventing the content from spreading. The financial consequences may become clearer only after evidence is collected and the defendants’ activities are investigated.

An artist may seek appropriate monetary relief on a legally sustainable basis, including compensation for established loss, relief connected with commercial exploitation and, where justified, an account of profits.

The evidence might include:

• Existing endorsement agreements and negotiations with prospective advertisers.
• Records showing the commercial reach of the unauthorised advertisement.
• Revenue generated by the website, seller or platform operator, where ascertainable.
• Evidence of subscriptions, sales or other monetisation linked to the disputed content.
• Communications from genuine business partners expressing concern about the false association.
• Evidence of reputational harm and the consequences of the impersonation.

These records can help connect the misuse to the claimed injury.

For example, if a company withdraws an endorsement negotiation because an AI-generated video falsely associates the artist with a competing product, the relevant communications may become important evidence.

The claim will still depend on causation, the applicable legal principles and the proof available.

An artist should not assume that a court will award a particular amount simply because the person is famous or because the defendant acted deliberately.

Likewise, a claim for punitive or aggravated damages is not automatically successful. It must be supported by the facts and the applicable law.

An interim injunction and a final monetary award serve different purposes. The first may stop the immediate misuse; the second requires a legally sustainable basis for financial relief.

7. Should the Artist Also Consider Criminal Remedies?

In some cases, yes.

Civil proceedings are particularly useful when the objective is to stop the publication or commercial exploitation of material and preserve a claim for compensation.

However, the facts may also disclose conduct requiring a criminal-law assessment.

A synthetic advertisement may be part of a fraudulent scheme designed to induce victims to transfer money. An impersonator may use a cloned voice to deceive family members or business associates. A deepfake may be circulated alongside threats, extortion or non-consensual intimate imagery.

Depending on the conduct and the available evidence, provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Information Technology Act, 2000, or other applicable laws may be relevant.

The correct provisions must be selected according to the elements of the suspected offence. A false AI-generated endorsement does not automatically establish cheating, and every misuse of a photograph is not necessarily a criminal offence.

The artist should preserve evidence of the underlying conduct, including payment requests, account details, communications and the precise representations made to the intended victims.

Where the facts justify it, a criminal complaint may proceed alongside civil action. The two routes have different purposes and evidentiary requirements, and one should not be treated as a substitute for the other.

8. What Evidence Should Be Preserved Before Filing a Case?

Evidence preservation is one of the most important practical steps in an AI impersonation dispute.

Online material can disappear quickly. An account may be deleted, a video may be edited, and a seller may move the same content to a new website.

The artist should preserve the original URL, screenshots, timestamps, account names, captions, comments, available engagement figures and any visible links to payment or sales pages.

Where possible, preserve the original audio or video file in its existing form. Keep copies of relevant communications and document the date on which the material was discovered.

If a business partner or member of the public has received the content, ask them to preserve the original communication and its context rather than forwarding only a compressed copy.

For serious disputes, counsel should consider whether additional methods of authentication or evidence preservation are appropriate.

A screenshot may demonstrate what appeared on a screen, but it may not, by itself, establish who created the content, how the AI model was trained or who received the resulting revenue.

Those questions may require further investigation, disclosure or technical evidence.

It is equally important to distinguish evidence of publication from evidence of loss. The first may help establish the existence and reach of the misuse; the second may be needed to substantiate a claim for damages.

9. What Are the Limits of Personality Rights?

This is where careful legal advice matters most.

An artist’s identity is commercially valuable, but the law does not grant a celebrity unrestricted control over every reference, imitation or depiction of their public life.

News reporting, criticism, commentary, parody and satire may be protected by freedom of speech and expression, depending on the circumstances.

A journalist may legitimately discuss a singer’s performance. A critic may analyse an actor’s public persona. A satirist may imitate a public figure to make a political or cultural point.

The fact that AI has been used does not, by itself, settle whether the resulting material is unlawful.

The questions include the purpose of the use, the nature of the representation, the likelihood of deception, the extent of commercial appropriation, the rights affected and the applicable legal exceptions.

Consider two examples.

In the first, a seller creates an AI-generated video showing a singer apparently endorsing a product and uses the singer’s reputation to generate sales. That conduct may support a strong claim for urgent relief.

In the second, a commentator publishes a clearly satirical video imitating the singer’s vocal style to criticise a public performance. The legal analysis may be substantially different.

Neither example should be decided by a mechanical rule that all AI imitations are unlawful or that all material labelled satire is protected.

The courts must balance the claimant’s legally recognised interests against the rights of others to communicate, criticise and create.

This is one reason why a narrowly framed injunction may be more appropriate than a demand to remove every online reference to the artist.

10. Do These Rights Apply Only to Celebrities?

No.

Celebrity cases receive attention because the commercial value of a famous person’s name, face or voice is often easier to demonstrate.

A well-known singer may have established endorsement contracts, licensing arrangements and a substantial commercial history. Those records can help demonstrate the consequences of unauthorised exploitation.

But fame does not create the entire legal right.

An ordinary professional may find that a synthetic video falsely shows them making a statement to clients. A small business owner may discover that a cloned voice is being used to solicit payments. An independent musician may find their voice being imitated in material falsely attributed to them.

The appropriate legal route depends on the facts, including the nature of the misrepresentation, the affected rights, the available evidence and the harm.

The absence of celebrity status does not automatically defeat a claim. Equally, being a public figure does not guarantee that every requested restriction will be granted.

The practical question is whether the claimant can establish a legally recognised basis for relief and demonstrate why the court’s intervention is justified.

11. What Should an Artist Do in the First 48 Hours?

The first two days should be spent containing the harm and preserving the evidence, not engaging in a public argument with the uploader.

Begin by recording the exact URLs, account details, timestamps and available copies of the disputed material. Preserve the original audio or video where possible, together with any advertisements, payment links or sales pages associated with it.

Next, identify the appropriate legal basis for a complaint. A fake commercial endorsement may require a different emphasis from a sexually explicit deepfake or a synthetic song that appears to reproduce a protected performance.

A lawyer can prepare a targeted preservation and takedown notice to the relevant platform or intermediary. The notice should identify the material, explain the lack of consent, specify the legal grounds and request the action available under the applicable rules.

If the material presents an urgent and substantial risk, counsel should assess whether to approach the appropriate High Court for interim relief, including a John Doe or Ashok Kumar injunction where the circumstances justify it.

The choice of forum requires proper consideration of jurisdiction, the defendants, the location of the relevant activity and the applicable procedural requirements. The Delhi and Bombay High Courts have developed important authorities in this area, but neither is automatically the correct forum for every claimant.

Where the evidence suggests fraud, extortion or another potential offence, the need for a criminal complaint should also be assessed.

Above all, preserve the evidence before the material disappears. A prompt and well-documented response is usually more useful than an immediate public confrontation.

Conclusion: The Law Is Developing, but the Remedies Are Real

India’s response to AI-generated impersonation is developing through several connected areas of law rather than through a single comprehensive personality-rights statute.

The decisions in Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, the Jackie Shroff proceedings, Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP and Asha Bhosle v. Mayk Inc. demonstrate how courts have approached the unauthorised exploitation of identity, voice, image and performance-related interests.

The February 2026 amendments to the IT Rules add another important dimension to the legal response to misleading synthetic content.

Yet the practical outcome of a case will depend on more than the existence of these authorities. The claimant must identify the misuse, preserve the evidence, establish the relevant legal grounds and seek relief proportionate to the harm.

It is also necessary to recognise the limits. Interim injunctions are not the same as final judgments. Personality rights do not extinguish legitimate criticism, news reporting or satire. Copyright and performers’ rights must be applied to the subject matter and conduct covered by the statute.

For an artist facing an AI-generated impersonation, the sensible course is to act promptly, preserve evidence and obtain a case-specific assessment before the material spreads further.

Your Face, Voice or Name Is Being Misused Online?

Call for an urgent legal strategy session.

What to Do in the First 48 Hours

1. Preserve the evidence. Save the original URL, screenshots, timestamps, account details, audio or video files, and any associated advertisements or payment links.
2. Do not engage publicly. Avoid arguments with the uploader or statements that could unnecessarily amplify the content. Preserve evidence before requesting removal.
3. Send a preservation and takedown notice. Identify the specific content, explain the lack of consent and invoke the applicable legal grounds and IT Rules.
4. Assess urgent court relief. Ask counsel whether the facts justify an interim injunction, including a John Doe or Ashok Kumar application before the appropriate High Court.
5. Consider parallel remedies. If the impersonation involves fraud, extortion or non-consensual intimate imagery, assess whether a criminal complaint or additional statutory remedy is appropriate.

AI Voice Cloning or Deepfake? Protect Your Identity Before the Damage Spreads

Has someone used your face, cloned your voice, created a fake video in your name, or used your identity to promote a product without your permission? Do not assume that nothing can be done simply because the content was created using AI.

Unauthorised AI-generated content can threaten your reputation, professional relationships, privacy and commercial interests. Depending on the facts, Indian law may provide remedies through personality rights, passing off, performers’ rights, copyright law and appropriate proceedings before the courts.

Taking timely legal action can help you preserve crucial evidence, seek removal of unauthorised content and assess whether an urgent injunction is necessary. Waiting too long may allow the material to spread across multiple websites, social media accounts and AI platforms.

Consult Adv. Tarun Choudhury

Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience

If your face, voice, name or professional identity has been misused online, seek a case-specific legal assessment of your available remedies.

• Call: 9891244487
• WhatsApp: 9891244487
• Email: [email protected]

Discuss the circumstances of your case, the evidence you have preserved, the possibility of sending a legal notice, and whether urgent court proceedings may be appropriate.

Your identity has value. Take informed legal steps to protect it. Contact Adv. Tarun Choudhury for a legal strategy session concerning AI deepfakes, voice cloning and personality rights in India.

Frequently Asked Questions: AI Voice Cloning, Deepfakes and Personality Rights in India

1. Is AI Voice Cloning Illegal in India?

AI voice cloning is not automatically illegal in every situation. However, using someone’s voice without permission for fraudulent advertisements, commercial exploitation, deceptive impersonation or harmful deepfakes may violate personality rights, passing-off principles, performers’ rights or other applicable laws. The legal position depends on the purpose, manner and consequences of the use.

2. Can I Sue Someone for Creating an AI Deepfake Video of Me?

Yes, you may be able to seek legal action if an AI-generated deepfake unlawfully uses your face, voice or identity. Depending on the facts, you may seek an injunction, removal of the content, protection against further misuse and appropriate monetary relief. The evidence and legal grounds must be assessed before initiating proceedings.

3. What Are Personality Rights in India, and How Do They Protect Celebrities and Artists?

Personality rights protect legally recognised interests in a person’s identity and its unauthorised exploitation. They may cover a person’s name, image, likeness, voice and distinctive characteristics. Indian courts have recognised these interests through principles associated with Article 21, passing off and other applicable laws. India does not currently have a standalone, comprehensive Personality Rights Act.

4. Can an Indian Court Order the Removal of AI-Generated Fake Advertisements Using My Face or Voice?

Yes. In an appropriate case, a court may grant an injunction directing relevant defendants or intermediaries to remove or disable access to unauthorised content. The relief may also address specified future instances of substantially similar misuse, depending on the wording of the order. The claimant must establish a sufficient legal basis for the requested relief.

5. What Did the Delhi High Court Decide in Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India Regarding AI Deepfakes?

In Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., CS(COMM) 652/2023, the Delhi High Court passed an order on 20 September 2023 addressing the unauthorised exploitation of the actor’s personality attributes, including his name, image, voice, likeness, mannerisms and the expression “Jhakaas.” The proceedings also addressed AI, face-morphing, deepfakes and GIFs. The case is an important authority on personality-rights protection against unauthorised digital and commercial exploitation.

6. Can a Singer Stop AI Platforms from Cloning Their Singing Voice?

A singer may seek legal protection where an AI platform enables unauthorised exploitation of their voice or protected performance. In Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2445, the Bombay High Court granted an ad-interim injunction concerning alleged AI-enabled voice cloning and the exploitation of the singer’s personality attributes. The available remedies depend on the facts, the rights involved and the scope of the relevant court order.

7. Can I Send a Legal Notice to a Website or Social Media Platform for an AI Deepfake?

Yes. A legal notice or platform grievance complaint can identify the offending URL, explain the unauthorised use, specify the relevant legal grounds and request removal and preservation of evidence. Depending on the content and applicable provisions of the Information Technology Rules, specific intermediary obligations may apply. A notice does not guarantee removal, and urgent court proceedings may be necessary in some cases.

8. Can I Obtain a John Doe Injunction Against Unknown Persons Sharing My AI-Generated Deepfake?

In an appropriate case, you can ask a court for a John Doe, also known as an Ashok Kumar, injunction against unidentified persons responsible for the complained-of misuse. Such relief can be useful when fake videos, cloned-voice advertisements or manipulated images are circulated through anonymous accounts. The scope of the injunction and the procedure for addressing new URLs will depend on the court’s directions.

9. How Can I Consult a Supreme Court Advocate About AI Voice Cloning or Personality Rights in India?

If your face, voice, name or identity has been misused through AI-generated content, you can seek a case-specific legal assessment of possible takedown notices, injunctions and other remedies.

Adv. Tarun Choudhury — Supreme Court Advocate | 25+ Years of Legal Experience

• Call: 9891244487
• WhatsApp: 9891244487
• Email: [email protected]

Preserve the original content, URLs, screenshots and relevant communications before seeking advice about the next legal step.

Key Takeaways: AI Voice Cloning, Deepfakes and Personality Rights in India

• Music Copyright Protection: Meaning, Rights, Violations and Legal Safeguards
• Synthetic Speech Regulation: Confronting the Challenge of Deepfakes and AI-Generated Impersonations
• India’s Review of Berne and TRIPS Compliance
• Protecting India’s Creators: The Power of Moral Rights in a Digital World
• The Role of Copyright Law in Protecting Creative Works of Art