Highlights:
- Rai filed a case against aishwaryaworld.com and other infringers misusing her name, image, and personal details.
- The site falsely claimed to be her “official website” and sold merchandise like T-shirts and mugs.
- Fraudulent schemes even used her photo on letterheads, naming her as chairperson of a fake “wealth fund.”
- Rai’s counsel flagged AI-generated pornographic deepfakes and morphed images as defamatory and degrading.
- Court is expected to grant interim injunctions, following precedents protecting Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor, and Jackie Shroff’s personality rights.
Bollywood actress Aishwarya Rai Bachchan has approached the Delhi High Court, seeking legal protection of her personality and publicity rights. The petition was filed against websites including aishwaryaworld.com, which allegedly use her name, photographs, and likeness without authorization.
The suit argues that this unauthorized use is part of a broader trend of online fraud exploiting celebrities’ identities. Her advocates have demanded injunctions to block these websites, remove infringing URLs, and instructed intermediaries such as Google and YouTube to take down illegal content.
Allegations of fraud and misuse of celebrity persona
Senior counsel Sandeep Sethi appearing on behalf of Rai, presented evidence that the website aishwaryaworld.com carries false claims of being the actress’s “only authorized and official website.” It also markets merchandise such as T-shirts and mugs featuring her image and name, creating a misleading impression of endorsement. The petition disclosed that Rai’s identity was used in fraudulent schemes, including a so-called “wealth fund,” which unlawfully listed her as chairperson and circulated misleading letters to solicit money from the public.
Additionally, the petition highlighted the circulation of morphed and AI-generated pornographic material featuring her image. Advocates demonstrated screenshots of fabricated chat messages and objectionable photos that violated Rai’s dignity and privacy, describing the misuse as a "derogatory, defamatory, and direct assault." These developments raise alarming concerns over new forms of identity exploitation through advanced AI technologies.
Court’s response and interim relief
The hearing, presided over by Justice Tejas Karia, was adjourned until January 15, 2026, but the court indicated it would issue interim injunction orders to stop infringing activities. The judge noted that there are about 151 URLs that form the core of the order and signaled that separate injunctions could be granted against individual defendants.
Justice Karia expressed intent to furnish detailed orders to restrain unauthorized use and protect Rai’s personality rights. He also allowed Rai’s petition to include “John Doe” defendants—unidentified parties that might harbor similar unauthorized material in the future—granting her broader legal protection.
Growing trend of celebrity personality rights protection
Rai’s legal push reflects a growing phenomenon in India, where celebrities are increasingly turning to courts to safeguard their identity rights. Indian courts have previously protected other film personalities on comparable grounds. Noteworthy cases include Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor, and Jackie Shroff, where the Delhi High Court restrained misuse of their names, voices, and images for unauthorized commercial use.
Anil Kapoor’s 2023 case notably barred exploitation of his popular catchphrases and on-screen persona. Last year, Jackie Shroff secured removal of a YouTube video that distorted his public image. The protection of personality rights is increasingly seen as an extension of fundamental rights to dignity and privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Legal experts on challenges and balance
Legal experts argue personality rights play a vital role in protecting celebrities from fraud and impersonation but caution that enforcement must be balanced to avoid undue restriction on content creators, especially in areas like satire and mimicry. Advocate Praveen Anand noted that such legal actions are mostly reactive, with celebrities defending their substantial reputations against misuse, rather than seeking to curb free expression unnecessarily.
