‘Khamosh!’ In Court: Shatrughan Sinha Moves Bombay High Court Against AI Deepfakes, Seeks ₹20 Crore Damages

‘Khamosh!’ In Court: Shatrughan Sinha Moves Bombay High Court Against AI Deepfakes, Seeks ₹20 Crore Damages

Introduction

This Commercial Suit has been instituted by veteran actor and Member of Parliament Shatrughan Sinha seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights, including exclusive rights over his name, image, likeness, voice, and his iconic catchphrase “Khamosh!”. The matter was heard by a Single Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, which has reserved orders on the prayer for ad-interim relief.

Factual Background

The Plaintiff, through his son and Power of Attorney holder Luv Sinha, pleads that he has enjoyed an illustrious career spanning over four decades in Indian cinema and over two decades in public life. Over the years, he has developed a commanding on-screen persona and distinctive mannerisms, earning the moniker “Shotgun”. It is contended that several protectable facets of his personality have acquired independent commercial value, including:

• His voice, vocal style and mannerisms;
• His name, image, likeness, caricature and signature;
• His iconic dialogue “Khamosh!”, which became inseparably associated with him following the 1976 film Kalicharan.

The Plaintiff alleges that various unknown and identified defendants are unauthorisedly exploiting these attributes through:

• AI-generated deepfakes and morphed videos;
• Fabricated statements and manipulated content;
• GIFs, memes and digital stickers created by distorting original performances;
• Sale of merchandise such as posters, magnets, clothing and digital products bearing his likeness;
• Circulation of objectionable and pornographic content generated using AI tools.

According to the Plaintiff, such acts amount to commercial misappropriation, passing off, and violation of his personality and moral rights.

Procedural Background

The present Commercial Suit has been filed before the Bombay High Court seeking urgent ad-interim protection. The matter was heard by Justice Sharmila Deshmukh and has been reserved for orders on interim relief. Several global and domestic entities have been arrayed as defendants, including— Meta, X, Google, Amazon, Pinterest.The Plaintiff has also sought “John Doe” orders against unidentified parties responsible for digital infringements.

Issues

1. Whether the unauthorised use of the Plaintiff’s name, likeness, voice and catchphrase amounts to infringement of personality and publicity rights.

2. Whether AI-generated deepfakes and morphed content violate the Plaintiff’s right to privacy and dignity under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution.

3. Whether such acts constitute passing off and commercial misappropriation.

4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to ad-interim injunctive relief restraining further misuse.

Contentions of the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff contends that he has exclusive proprietary and commercial rights over identifiable facets of his personality, which have acquired goodwill and distinctiveness through decades of public recognition. The use of his name, image and iconic dialogue “Khamosh!” without authorisation misleads the public into believing endorsement or association.

The dissemination of deepfake and morphed content harms his reputation and subjects him to unsavoury humour and ridicule.

The unauthorised sale of merchandise amounts to passing off and unjust enrichment.

Such exploitation infringes his moral rights as a performer under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957. The misuse violates his fundamental right to privacy and dignity under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution. The Plaintiff has conservatively assessed damages at ₹20 Crore and seeks a permanent injunction restraining further violations.

Reasoning and Analysis

At the preliminary stage, the Court considered the nature of the allegations, particularly the use of AI-generated deepfakes and digital manipulation technologies. The pleadings emphasise that personality rights are protectable where identity attributes have acquired distinctiveness and commercial value.

The suit frames personality rights as an intersection of intellectual property law, privacy rights, and the tort of passing off. The Plaintiff’s argument rests on the principle that unauthorised commercial exploitation of identity amounts to misrepresentation and dilution of goodwill.

The matter also raises significant contemporary concerns regarding AI-generated content and digital impersonation. The prayer for “John Doe” orders reflects the difficulty in identifying anonymous online infringers. Given the seriousness of the allegations and the potential for irreparable reputational harm, the Court deemed it appropriate to reserve orders on the request for ad-interim relief.

Decision

The Bombay High Court has reserved orders on the Plaintiff’s prayer for ad-interim injunction. The matter shall be listed for pronouncement of interim orders.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Hiren Kamod along with Advocates Nidhi Singh, Abha Shah and Amisha Upadhyay instructed IndiaLaw LLP.