Shruti Haasan v. Mahalaxmi Arts: Bombay HC Issues AI John Doe Order

Procedural Genesis and Factual Context

The matter of Shruti Haasan Vs Mahalaxmi Arts And Craft Works (IAL/26123/2026), adjudicated before the Bombay High Court by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar on 3 September 2026, represents a significant judicial engagement with the intersection of emerging digital technologies and established common law protections for individual identity. The Plaintiff, a prominent actor and public figure, initiated the suit seeking to protect her personality and publicity rights against a diverse array of defendants, ranging from physical merchandise manufacturers to large-scale digital platforms. The central grievance concerns the unauthorized exploitation of the Plaintiff’s name, image, and likeness for commercial gain, compounded by the sophisticated misuse of artificial intelligence tools.

The factual matrix reveals that the Defendants, identified as Mahalaxmi Arts and Craft Works and others, have engaged in the sale of various products bearing the Plaintiff’s likeness without authorization. The scope of the infringement extends beyond traditional merchandising. The evidence before the Court indicates the existence of unauthorized posters, counterfeit merchandise, and, significantly, AI-generated content. The Plaintiff asserted that these activities constitute a clear violation of her personality rights, publicity rights, and common law protections against the tort of passing off, misappropriation, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment.

A notable aspect of this litigation is the inclusion of several large-scale digital intermediaries, specifically identified as Defendant Nos. 11 through 15, including entities such as Flipkart. The Plaintiff alleges that these platforms function as conduits for the unauthorized commercialization of her identity. The gravity of the infringement is exacerbated by the discovery of deepfake videos, manipulated photographs, internet memes, and AI-generated voice simulations. These digital fabrications are alleged to infringe upon the Plaintiff’s moral rights and her right to privacy as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Jurisprudential Framework of Personality and Publicity Rights

The Court’s consideration of the matter hinges on the recognition that personality rights and publicity rights are not merely abstract concepts but are concrete protections stemming from an individual’s right to control their own identity. In the context of the present suit, these rights function as a legal shield against the unauthorized commodification of one’s name, image, and likeness. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant’s actions constitute a direct misappropriation of these rights for commercial exploitation.

The legal arguments brought forward underscore a modern interpretation of the Copyright Act, 1957. Specifically, the Plaintiff relies on Section 38, Section 38-A, and Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957. These provisions are fundamental to the rights of performers, as they govern the moral rights of performers and the protection of their broadcast reproduction rights, ensuring that a performer’s work cannot be exploited or distorted in a manner that prejudices their reputation. By invoking these sections, the Plaintiff argues that the unauthorized use of her image and voice in manipulated formats damages her professional standing and personal dignity.

The Court scrutinized the allegation of passing off. In the Indian legal , passing off is a common law remedy used to protect the goodwill and reputation of a trader or individual against the misrepresentation of goods or services. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants are effectively trading on her popularity by offering goods and digital content that deceive the public into believing they are authorized or endorsed by her. This form of unfair competition and unjust enrichment strikes at the heart of the protection afforded to public figures who must actively manage the commercial use of their persona.

Analysis of the John Doe Order and Procedural Necessity

Given the anonymity of several actors involved in the distribution of counterfeit goods and the creation of deepfake content, the Plaintiff sought a John Doe order. A John Doe order is a legal mechanism that allows a court to issue an injunction against unidentified defendants, or “persons unknown,” whose identities may be revealed during the course of the investigation or discovery process. This is particularly relevant in the digital age, where infringing content can be hosted or distributed by users hiding behind aliases or fragmented online identities.

The Court addressed the necessity of this joinder, acknowledging the challenges inherent in identifying the perpetrators behind decentralized digital infringement. By including “John Does” in the suit, the Plaintiff ensures that the injunction granted can be enforced against those who may surface after the filing of the suit but who are currently facilitating the sale of merchandise or the spread of AI-generated content. This procedural step is an acknowledgment that modern intellectual property infringement often operates in a fluid, shifting, and anonymous environment that traditional service of process might fail to capture. The Court, in line with established practice, balanced the need for effective relief against the necessity of ensuring due process for all parties.

Court Reasoning on Injunctive Relief and Digital Responsibility

The Court’s deliberation centered on the grant of a temporary injunction, which acts as a stay on the Defendants’ activities pending a final adjudication of the matter. The standard for granting such relief in India requires the applicant to demonstrate a prima facie case, the balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable harm if the injunction is denied. The material evidence of unauthorized posters, counterfeit merchandise, and AI-generated deepfakes provided a strong prima facie case for the Plaintiff.

The role of digital platforms, specifically the Defendant Nos. 11 to 15, formed a crucial element of the Court’s reasoning. These entities operate large digital marketplaces where the Plaintiff’s identity is purportedly used without authorization. The legal expectation placed upon these platforms is to act as diligent intermediaries. If a platform is notified of infringing content that violates the personality rights of an individual, its failure to act upon such notification exposes it to liability. The injunction serves to compel these platforms to remove and restrict access to the infringing listings and content immediately.

The Court underscored that the right to freedom of expression does not grant an unfettered license to exploit the persona of another for commercial gain. While the public may engage with content related to public figures, the distinction between artistic or critical commentary and the commercial misappropriation of a person’s image, likeness, or voice remains a line that the law must police. The evidence of deepfake videos and voice simulations represents an escalation in the types of harm that can befall an individual, as these technologies can potentially deceive the public more effectively than traditional static images.

Also Read: Semiconductor Layout Design in India: Protection and Registry Guide

Decision and Judicial Significance

The Bombay High Court, after considering the submissions, granted a temporary injunction against Defendant Nos. 1 to 10 and Defendant No. 18, restraining them from any unauthorized use of the Plaintiff’s name, image, and likeness. The order specifically targets the sale of counterfeit merchandise and the distribution of AI-generated content that infringes upon the Plaintiff’s personality rights. The ruling reinforces the Court’s willingness to protect individuals against the unauthorized use of their digital persona, particularly where such use involves the deployment of deceptive AI technologies.

The significance of this judgment lies in the Court’s application of established intellectual property principles to the evolving challenges of the digital era. By linking personality and publicity rights to the protections afforded under the Copyright Act, 1957, the Court has provided a clearer path for public figures to seek redress. The inclusion of John Doe provisions further signals that the judiciary is prepared to adapt its procedural mechanisms to address the anonymity associated with online platforms and the rapid dissemination of AI-generated misinformation.

The judgment effectively places the responsibility on both direct manufacturers of counterfeit goods and the digital intermediaries that host such content. It asserts that the commercial exploitation of an individual’s identity, regardless of the medium, be it physical goods or digital simulations, is subject to judicial scrutiny. The ruling serves as an authoritative signal to entities involved in the merchandising and digital content sectors that the unauthorized commercialization of a celebrity’s identity will not be viewed lightly. Practitioners should note that the Court’s reliance on a interpretation of personality rights, coupled with the creative use of injunctive relief, provides a template for future litigation involving similar facts.

Ultimately, the decision in Shruti Haasan Vs Mahalaxmi Arts And Craft Works affirms the sanctity of an individual’s identity as a proprietary interest that warrants protection against misappropriation. As the technology of content generation continues to advance, the legal principles articulated here will likely form the basis for further jurisprudence concerning the boundaries of personal identity and public consumption. The Court has clarified that neither the anonymity of the internet nor the complexity of AI tools can insulate defendants from liability when their actions violate the core rights of an individual to control their own persona.