Artificial Intelligence has significantly advanced the ability to create highly realistic yet fabricated audio, video and image content. While these technological developments have opened new possibilities, they have also given rise to serious legal concerns in India. What initially appeared to be a technological novelty has now become a genuine threat to reputation, privacy, political discourse, and commercial identity, particularly because manipulated content can spread far more rapidly than any judicial determination.

Deepfakes are not merely edited digital content, they are artificially generated recreations designed to convincingly imitate a person's face, voice, gestures, or speech. Their misuse ranges from fake endorsements and misleading advertisements to counterfeit products, often resulting in consumer confusion. At the same time, deepfakes have become a tool for defamation, political misinformation, online harassment, and violations of privacy, underscoring the growing need for robust protection of personality rights.

Interim Injunctions and the Legal Framework

An interim injunction is a temporary remedy granted by a court to preserve rights and prevent further harm until the final adjudication of a dispute. Before granting such relief, Indian courts ordinarily apply the well-established threefold test:

1. The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case.
2. The plaintiff must demonstrate that denial of relief would result in irreparable injury.
3. The balance of convenience must favour the grant of the injunction.

In disputes involving deepfakes, these requirements are often readily satisfied. The harm caused by AI-generated false content is typically immediate, reputational, and extremely difficult to reverse once the content has been widely circulated.

To address AI-enabled misuse of identity, courts have relied upon principles relating to personality rights, defamation, passing off, and intermediary liability, while also drawing strength from the constitutional values of dignity, privacy, and reputation protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Judicial Trends in Indian Courts

Indian courts have increasingly adopted a proactive approach in cases involving AI-generated deepfake content. Rather than waiting for a lengthy trial to conclude, they have shown a willingness to grant immediate relief by directing the removal of offending content and restraining its further circulation. Deepfake misuse is increasingly being treated as an urgent and continuing wrong that warrants prompt judicial intervention.

The decision in Shashi Tharoor v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. (2026) illustrates this evolving judicial approach to the challenges posed by emerging digital technologies. The Delhi High Court granted protection against AI-generated deepfake videos falsely portraying Shashi Tharoor making politically sensitive statements. Recognising that an individual's name, voice, likeness, and mannerisms are integral aspects of personality rights, the Court directed the removal of the impugned content and ordered disclosure of the identities of the uploaders. The judgment reflects the judiciary's growing concern over the misuse of artificial intelligence in electoral and political discourse.

What is particularly significant about this case is the nature of the interim relief that was sought and granted. The relief was not confined to the removal of a single video or edited clip. Instead, it extended to restraining the unauthorised use of Mr. Tharoor's name, image, likeness, voice, photographs, persona, and other identifying attributes through AI-generated content, deepfakes, morphed material, and voice cloning. This broader form of protection demonstrates the courts' evolving understanding of the harm caused by deepfakes. The real injury lies not merely in the falsity of the content but in the unauthorized digital appropriation of an individual's identity.

Such injunctions are both practical and necessary. In today's digital environment, content shared online can spread within minutes across multiple platforms and jurisdictions. Deepfakes, in particular, have the potential to reappear in altered forms even after initial removal, causing continuing damage to a person's reputation. In these circumstances, a final decree delivered years later may offer little meaningful relief. Interim injunctions therefore serve as the most effective legal mechanism to prevent further dissemination, ensure platform compliance, and protect the plaintiff's dignity and public standing while the proceedings remain pending.

A similar approach is evident in Gautam Gambhir v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors., where the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the unauthorized use of Gautam Gambhir's name, image, voice, likeness, and other identifying attributes through AI-generated content. The Court restrained the creation and dissemination of deepfakes, face-swapped content, fabricated statements, and other AI-generated material that misappropriated his personality rights and directed intermediaries to remove the infringing content and disclose details of the wrongdoers. The decision reflects the judiciary's proactive approach in preventing irreparable harm arising from AI-enabled misuse of personality rights.

The expanding scope of such protection is further evident from Konidala Pawan Kalyan v. Ashok Kumar John Doe. In that case, the Delhi High Court passed an ad interim order restraining web companies, AI platforms, and other defendants from using his name, image, voice, likeness, and personality attributes for misleading or commercial purposes. The decision is significant because it acknowledges that deepfake misuse often involves multiple interconnected elements, including platform distribution, impersonation, counterfeit merchandise, and false endorsements, all forming part of a single factual matrix.

Balancing Free Speech and Protection from Harm

At the same time, courts have remained mindful of the constitutional guarantee of free speech. The emerging judicial approach does not seek to prohibit all AI-generated or altered content. Instead, the focus is on content that is falsely attributed to an individual and causes harm to their reputation, privacy, or commercial interests. By drawing this distinction, courts have sought to deny protection to deceptive impersonation while preserving legitimate forms of expression such as commentary, reporting, parody, and satire.

Conclusion

The recent judicial trend, particularly before the Delhi High Court, suggests that interim injunctions have emerged as the primary civil remedy against deepfakes. Decisions involving Shashi Tharoor, Gautam Gambhir, and Pawan Kalyan demonstrate that where AI-generated content threatens an individual's privacy, dignity, reputation, or commercial goodwill, courts are willing to intervene swiftly. In the absence of dedicated legislation governing deepfakes, these interim injunctions represent the judiciary's pragmatic effort to adapt established legal principles to address the challenges posed by rapidly evolving AI technology.