New Delhi: Bollywood actress Aishwarya Rai Bachchan has moved the Delhi High Court to protect her personality rights, raising concerns over the unauthorised use of her name, photographs, and public persona across digital platforms and commercial products.
The case was heard by Justice Tejas Karia, who indicated the court’s intention to issue injunctions to prevent such misuse. The matter is now scheduled for further proceedings on January 15, 2026.
Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, representing Rai, highlighted the widespread exploitation of her identity for commercial gain and inappropriate content. He noted that numerous websites falsely presented themselves as her official platforms, misleading the public and infringing on her publicity rights. Sethi cited instances of unauthorised merchandise, including mugs, T-shirts, and drinkware, bearing her image and name.
Sethi also revealed a particularly concerning case involving a company named Aishwarya Nation Wealth, which falsely listed Rai as its Chairperson in official documents despite having no legitimate connection to her. He described the act as fraudulent and emphasised that Rai had no knowledge of or involvement with the entity.
The lawyer further raised the issue of digital manipulation, informing the court that obscene, morphed, and AI-generated images of Rai had been circulated online. He condemned the misuse as a gross violation of her dignity, noting that her likeness was being exploited for sexually explicit purposes.
Representing Google, advocate Mamta Rani addressed the procedural aspects of content removal, pointing out that specific URLs would need to be submitted for takedown. Justice Karia observed that while a single unified order would be ideal, separate injunctions might be required depending on the extent of violations.
The court noted that Rai could submit specific URLs for removal or approach the Blocking and Screening Instructions (BSI) process. Given the broad scope of relief sought, the court indicated it would pass orders against each defendant individually. Where feasible, a common order would be issued; otherwise, injunctions would be granted on a case-by-case basis.
