The Delhi High Court has decreed Arjun Kapoor's personality-rights suit and made its interim AI and deepfake restraints absolute against nine defendants

Key takeaways

• The Court decreed the suit after noting that none of the defendants controverted the plaint, and it held no trial.
• The April 2026 interim directions, which name AI, generative AI, machine learning, deepfakes and face morphing, are made absolute for defendant nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14 and 15.
• Defendant nos. 17 and 18, the Union ministry and department, are directed to take down the listed links.
• The plaintiff may send newly found URLs to Meta Platforms and Google LLC on affidavit; they act under their own policies.

What did the Delhi High Court decide in the Arjun Kapoor suit?

It decreed the suit. The plaintiff sought relief on the ground that his work and artistic calibre gave him personality rights that third parties may not exploit without consent. The Court did not recite the plaint at length. It recorded that "none of the defendants has come forward to controvert the averments made in the plaint", so, with no written statement or affidavit of admission or denial, the averments are liable to be treated as admitted under Rule 3 of Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. It concluded that no disputed question of fact required a trial.

Other points in the order: defendant nos. 5 and 6 (Etsy Ireland and Redbubble) had already been deleted from the array of parties, and defendant no. 1 had applied to be deleted because it said it had complied with the interim directions. The Court also records that it perused the impugned links and was satisfied they were used without the plaintiff's consent and for commercial exploitation. The suit "stands disposed of, along with the pending applications", and the 14 December 2026 date before the Joint Registrar is cancelled.

What do the AI and deepfake restraints cover?

The restraints come from the interim order of 29 April 2026, which the decree quotes. Paragraph 47(i) of that order restrains the named defendants, and their associates, agents, affiliates, representatives and persons claiming through or under them, from violating the plaintiff's personality, publicity and moral rights by using or exploiting his name "Arjun Kapoor", his image and likeness, other attributes of his persona exclusively identifiable with him, or his performances, "for any commercial and/or personal gain and/or otherwise" and "without the plaintiff's consent and/or authorization", "through the use of any technology including but not limited to Artificial Intelligence, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Deepfakes, Face Morphing, Superimposing". Paragraph 47(ii) separately restrains the same persons from creating, sharing or disseminating products (including T-shirts, sweatshirts, stickers, posters and mugs) and content (including audio-visual content, images and videos) through the use of the same technologies and on any medium or format.

The decree makes those directions absolute, but only in part of the defendant list. Paragraph 8(i) says "The interim directions dated 29.04.2026, insofar as they concern defendant nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14 and 15, are hereby made absolute." Paragraph 7 records that defendant nos. 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15 had been proceeded against ex parte. Defendant nos. 10 and 13 appear in that ex parte list but not in the list of defendants against whom the directions are made absolute, and the order does not explain the difference.

Who is directed to take links down, and how can the plaintiff report new URLs?

The takedown direction runs to the two government defendants. Paragraph 8(i) directs defendant nos. 17 and 18, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications, to take down the infringing links attributable to defendant no. 3 that remain active, and the links listed in prayer clauses (v) to (viii) of the plaint. The order does not itself list the URLs.

Paragraph 8(ii) covers links found later. The plaintiff may approach Meta Platforms and Google LLC, copying their counsel on record, with the details of any subsequently discovered URLs or content, together with supporting particulars on an affidavit. The concerned defendants are to "independently examine and evaluate" the request and act in terms of their own policies. If they do not act, the plaintiff may return to the Court. In the same paragraph the order refers to "defendant no.110/Google LLC", which we read as a numbering slip in the source; we have not relied on that number. The order cites an earlier decree, Rajat Sharma & Anr. v. Tamara Doc & Ors., as the model for this notification route.

What does this mean for IP counsel and platforms, and what should they do now?

For IP and media counsel, the order shows an uncontested personality-rights case ending in a final decree that carries AI and deepfake language, rather than stopping at interim relief. Because the Court treated the plaint as admitted and held no trial, we would not read it as a reasoned ruling on how far personality rights extend to AI-generated content. For platforms and marketplaces, the order creates a defined affidavit-based notification route for this plaintiff, and it leaves each recipient to act under its own policies.

• Read paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment before citing it, and note which defendants the absolute directions cover.
• If you act for a public figure, compare your own prayer clauses against the AI-technology wording in paragraph 47 of the interim order.
• If you run a notice-and-takedown desk, check that your process can accept an affidavit-backed URL notice and log how you evaluated it against your own policies.
• Do not treat the decree as a general rule. It is a decree between the parties, and the quoted restraint also reaches the defendants' associates, agents, affiliates, representatives and persons claiming through or under them.

Which dates matter in the order?

The order sets no compliance deadline.

What we did not verify

What we opened: the nine-page judgment PDF in CS(COMM) 454/2026, as hosted by LiveLawBiz, which carries the Delhi High Court signature block (signing date 17 October 2026), on 25 October 2026. We did not open a copy hosted by the court.

What we did not open: the 29 April 2026 interim order itself (we rely on the passage the decree quotes), the plaint and the prayer clauses, the decree sheet, any copy on the Delhi High Court website, and the Rajat Sharma decree. We did not check whether defendant nos. 10 and 13 are covered by any separate direction.

What we refuse to claim: that the order sets a general rule on AI and personality rights, that it binds anyone beyond the parties and those the quoted restraint describes (associates, agents, affiliates, representatives and persons claiming through or under the defendants), that the Court reasoned on the merits of AI-specific harm, or what Meta, Google or the Union ministries did after the order.

Related briefings

• AI Regulation News hub
• Asia-Pacific AI regulation tracker
• Attorneys and AI regulation
• Delhi High Court on AI deepfake personality rights and takedown for Ravi Kishan
• India IT Rules on synthetic media labeling
• India MeitY AI governance guidelines and actor liability
• Beijing Internet Court on AI face-swap and personality rights