Introduction:

In Jubin Nautiyal v. Jammable Limited and Others, the Delhi High Court reaffirmed the growing judicial recognition of personality and publicity rights in the digital age. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of singer Jubin Nautiyal restraining multiple artificial intelligence platforms, websites, e commerce intermediaries and unknown entities from unauthorized use and commercial exploitation of his name, voice, image and other personality attributes. The suit was instituted against named defendants as well as John Does to address unidentified entities allegedly misusing AI technologies to generate and circulate content exploiting the singer’s identity without consent. The Court observed that Nautiyal had made out a prima facie strong case for protection of his personality rights and that failure to grant immediate relief would cause irreparable harm to his image and reputation. The matter now stands listed for further hearing on August 25, with summons issued to the defendants directing them to file written statements within thirty days.

Arguments:

On behalf of the plaintiff, it was contended that Jubin Nautiyal is a well known and widely recognized public figure whose voice and persona command significant goodwill and commercial value. Counsel argued that in the contemporary digital ecosystem, AI driven platforms are capable of replicating voices, generating synthetic performances and creating misleading endorsements without authorization. Such misuse, it was submitted, not only infringes personality and publicity rights but also dilutes the distinct identity painstakingly built over years of artistic labour. The plaintiff contended that several platforms and online intermediaries had enabled the creation and dissemination of AI generated content mimicking his voice and likeness for commercial gain. It was further argued that these acts amounted to misappropriation of personality attributes and unjust enrichment at the expense of the plaintiff’s reputation. Emphasis was placed on the principle that personality rights are an intrinsic facet of the right to privacy and the right to control commercial exploitation of one’s identity. The plaintiff submitted that unless restrained immediately, such unauthorized exploitation would multiply rapidly in the digital sphere, causing irreversible reputational and economic damage. Given the anonymity of several infringing entities, a John Doe order was sought to prevent unknown actors from continuing misuse. The plaintiff asserted that the balance of convenience lay entirely in his favour and that monetary compensation would be inadequate to remedy the injury caused to his public image.

While detailed counter arguments from all defendants were yet to be placed on record due to the ex parte nature of the interim stage, it was broadly contended by certain appearing defendants that intermediaries merely host user generated content and should not be held directly liable absent specific knowledge. It was also suggested that technological innovation and user creativity should not be unduly stifled. However, the Court at this preliminary stage confined itself to assessing whether the plaintiff had established the essential ingredients for grant of interim protection.

Judgment:

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, after considering the pleadings and submissions, recorded that the plaintiff had established a prima facie strong case. The Court took note of the singer’s well known, popular and well accepted personality and observed that his name, voice and image carry distinct commercial and reputational value. It held that the balance of convenience tilted decisively in favour of the plaintiff, particularly in light of the rapid and uncontrollable spread of digital content. The Court further observed that the potential dent and damage to the image and personality of the singer appeared real and present, and that denial of interim protection could result in irreparable loss not compensable in monetary terms. Recognizing the evolving challenges posed by AI driven impersonation and deepfake technologies, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, including unknown entities, from unauthorized use and commercial exploitation of the plaintiff’s personality attributes. Summons were issued in the suit with directions to file written statements within thirty days. The order aligns with a series of recent decisions by coordinate benches of the Delhi High Court protecting personality rights of public figures including Pawan Kalyan, Sunil Gavaskar, Kajol Devgan, R. Madhavan, N. T. Rama Rao Jr., Salman Khan, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Nagarjuna, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, Karan Johar, Sudhir Chaudhary and Raj Shamani. Through this order, the Court reinforced the principle that technological advancement cannot override individual autonomy over identity and reputation, and that courts must adapt equitable remedies to safeguard personality rights in the era of artificial intelligence.