Delhi High Court Seeks Clarity in Sonakshi Sinha’s AI Misuse Suit, Directs Filing of Defendant-Wise URL List

Delhi High Court Seeks Clarity in Sonakshi Sinha’s AI Misuse Suit, Directs Filing of Defendant-Wise URL List

Introduction

The Delhi High Court directed actor Sonakshi Sinha to file a clear and structured, defendant-wise list of allegedly infringing URLs in her personality rights suit concerning misuse of her likeness by AI-based platforms, emphasizing that only legally sustainable reliefs would be granted.

Factual Background

Sonakshi Sinha instituted a suit seeking protection of her personality rights against alleged misuse of her image, voice, and identity by certain online platforms offering AI-based tools. It was alleged that these platforms enabled users to create chatbots that could impersonate the actor, thereby misleading the public and infringing her personality rights. The plaintiff contended that such misuse posed serious risks of misrepresentation and reputational harm.

Procedural Background

During the hearing before the Delhi High Court, Justice Jyoti Singh examined the material placed on record and found a lack of clarity regarding the specific infringing content. The plaintiff had annexed URLs in support of her claims; however, the Court found them inadequately structured and difficult to assess. Consequently, directions were issued for better presentation of the material.

Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff had sufficiently identified the infringing content for grant of relief.

2. What form of interim directions could be issued in a personality rights claim involving AI-generated content.

Contentions of Parties

The plaintiff contended that certain websites were enabling users to create AI-generated chatbots using her likeness, thereby falsely suggesting her involvement or endorsement. It was argued that such conduct infringed her personality rights and warranted immediate intervention. The intermediary (domain registrar), on the other hand, submitted that its role was limited to technical functions such as blocking or suspending domain names and that any directions issued by the Court should be confined to such scope.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court observed that while the grievance raised by the plaintiff appeared serious, the pleadings lacked clarity in identifying the specific infringing URLs. It emphasized that relief could only be granted where the infringing material is clearly identified and linked to specific defendants. The Court also cautioned against granting overly broad or omnibus reliefs, reiterating that judicial intervention must remain within legally recognized boundaries. At the same time, it acknowledged the emerging challenges posed by AI-based misuse of personality rights and the need for careful scrutiny.

The Court also noted the limited role of intermediaries and clarified that any directions issued would be proportionate to their technical capabilities. Given the sensitive nature of the material, the Court permitted certain documents to be filed in a sealed cover.

Decision

The Delhi High Court directed the plaintiff to file a clear, defendant-wise tabulation of infringing URLs and granted time to submit additional material in a sealed cover. The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar and for further hearing on the interim application is listed on 11th May, 2026.