Delhi HC Examines Personality Rights in Abhishek Sharma's AI Image Case

Delhi HC examines scope of personality rights in Abhishek Sharma's suit; flags thin line between defamation and publicity rights

New Delhi, July 7

Justice Jyoti Singh heard the matter and scrutinised several web links identified by Sharma as allegedly infringing his personality rights. The Court also made significant observations on the evolving intersection between personality rights and defamation in the digital era.

During the hearing, advocate Varun Pathak, appearing for Meta, informed the Court that out of eight URLs presently under consideration, two were no longer accessible. Referring to one of the remaining links, Pathak submitted that it appeared to be a "paparazzi kind of" post and did not, in his view, amount to a violation of personality rights.

Counsel appearing for Sharma, however, disputed the submission, contending that the impugned content was not an ordinary paparazzi photograph. It was argued that an original image of the cricketer with his manager had allegedly been altered using artificial intelligence by changing its appearance and context, thereby creating a misleading AI-generated image.

Sharma's counsel, advocate Thakur, submitted that the case involved manipulation of the plaintiff's image through AI technology rather than mere publication of a photograph. According to the plaintiff, the altered image conveyed a false impression and amounted to unauthorised exploitation of his personality.

While considering the rival submissions, the Court observed that disputes involving online content often present a "thin line" between defamation and personality rights.

"We also find this every day where there is a thin line between defamation and personality rights. It is in a flux. There is a little overlap. Defamatory matter may have personality rights element," Justice Singh observed.

Responding to the Court's observations, Pathak argued that false or unsavoury statements about an individual would ordinarily fall within the realm of defamation or privacy rather than personality rights.

He further submitted that expanding personality rights claims to include all adverse online content could create practical difficulties for intermediaries. According to Meta, while Sharma had originally approached the Court with approximately 25 URLs, the number of allegedly infringing links later escalated to around 4,000.

Pathak argued that such an expansion made compliance increasingly difficult and, if accepted, would effectively require intermediaries to "clean up the internet" of any content critical of the plaintiff, regardless of whether it actually violated personality rights.

After hearing the parties, the Court deferred further consideration of the matter to July 9, noting that certain issues relating to the plaint required attention.

The suit is part of a growing number of personality rights cases before the Delhi High Court involving celebrities seeking protection against the unauthorised commercial use or manipulation of their names, photographs, likenesses and identities on digital platforms. The emergence of artificial intelligence tools capable of generating or altering realistic images and videos has increasingly prompted public figures to seek judicial protection against deepfakes, digitally manipulated content and other unauthorised uses of their persona.

The Delhi High Court has, in several recent cases involving actors, sportspersons and other public figures, recognised that personality rights may deserve protection against misuse, particularly where AI-generated or manipulated content falsely associates an individual with events, products or narratives, while continuing to examine how such claims interact with established principles governing defamation, privacy and freedom of expression.

— ANI