Delhi High Court Grants Interim Protection To Pookie Baba, Orders Takedown Of AI Deepfakes And Misleading Persona Misuse

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Protection To Pookie Baba, Orders Takedown Of AI Deepfakes And Misleading Persona Misuse

Introduction

The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to the personality rights of spiritual preacher Aniruddhacharya Ji Maharaj, popularly known as “Pookie Baba”, restraining the unauthorised use of his persona, voice, image, and distinctive discourse style. The Court held that the apprehension of harm to his image and reputation was “real and present”, and directed major digital platforms including Meta, X, and Google to take down identified infringing links containing AI-generated, deepfake, and manipulated content.

Factual background

The plaintiff, Aniruddhacharya Ji Maharaj, is a widely followed spiritual preacher whose sermons and discourses have attracted millions of views across digital platforms and whose public persona has acquired substantial recognition, including acknowledgment in the London World Book of Records. He asserted rights over his name, likeness, voice, distinctive Braj-Avadhi style of discourse, and the sobriquet “Pookie Baba.” The grievance arose from the circulation of AI-generated and digitally manipulated content falsely depicting him singing songs, reciting romantic shayari, and appearing in meme-style reels wholly inconsistent with his spiritual persona. It was specifically alleged that such content misused his appearance, mannerisms, and voice for commercial and viral online engagement, thereby diluting the sanctity of his public identity and misleading followers. One of the cited instances included a reel in which the faces of cricket players were superimposed over the plaintiff and a devotee during a sermon.

Procedural background

The plaintiff instituted proceedings before the Delhi High Court seeking urgent protection of his personality rights against unknown defendants and intermediary platforms hosting the impugned content. The matter came before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, who considered the plaintiff’s prayer for temporary injunction and platform-level takedown directions. A list of specific infringing URLs and social media links was handed over during the hearing and was taken on record as Annexure-A to the order. The Court also considered the need for dynamic future protection in respect of newly discovered infringing links.

Issues

1. Whether the unauthorised use of the plaintiff’s name, likeness, voice, and mannerisms amounted to infringement of personality rights?

2. Whether AI-generated and deepfake content depicting the plaintiff in false and disparaging contexts was protected as parody or actionable misuse?

3. Whether the Court should grant dynamic takedown directions for future infringing links discovered after institution of the suit?

Contentions of the parties

The plaintiff contended that his name, image, discourse style, catchphrases, and mannerisms had become uniquely identifiable attributes associated with his spiritual teachings and public reputation. It was argued that the circulation of AI-generated videos, deepfakes, altered voice clips, and meme-based content falsely depicting him in romantic, comedic, or otherwise inappropriate contexts was causing serious reputational damage and misleading his followers. The plaintiff further submitted that such misuse was not mere parody but a deliberate distortion of his persona for commercial virality and digital engagement. The intermediary platforms and unknown defendants had not yet filed any substantive defence at the interim stage, and the Court proceeded on the basis of the plaintiff’s pleadings and the infringing links placed on record.

Reasoning and analysis

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie strong case for protection of his personality rights. The Court observed that the plaintiff’s public identity, discourse style, and distinctive attributes had become widely recognized and commercially valuable markers of his persona. Upon examining the identified links, the Court concluded that the impugned content could not prima facie be treated as harmless parody, since the nature of the videos and reels appeared disparaging, misleading, and violative of the plaintiff’s personality rights. The Court specifically noted that the apprehension of damage to the plaintiff’s image and dignity was “real and present” and that denial of relief would lead to irreparable injury incapable of monetary compensation. Given the nature of online dissemination and the likelihood of recurring infringements, the Court also considered it necessary to permit the plaintiff to notify newly discovered infringing links directly to the platforms for immediate takedown without instituting fresh proceedings each time.

Decision

The Delhi High Court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, and all persons acting on their behalf from using, reproducing, exploiting, or digitally manipulating the plaintiff’s name, image, voice, likeness, mannerisms, and other distinctive personality attributes, including through AI tools, deepfake technology, or similar digital means, without authorization. Meta, X, and Google were directed to remove, disable access to, and permanently take down the identified infringing content. The plaintiff was also granted liberty to notify additional infringing links and accounts discovered subsequently, which the platforms were directed to remove upon notice without requiring fresh litigation.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Advocates Ankur Snehi, Yashika Kaushik & Radhika Agarwal. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Advocates Mamta Rani Jha, Rohan Ahuja, Shruttima & Vareesha.