Delhi HC Orders Removal of 150+ URLs in Tabu Case

• The Delhi High Court has granted Tabu interim protection against unauthorised use of her name, image, voice and other personality attributes.
• The restraint specifically covers AI-generated content, deepfakes, face morphing, GIFs and other digital manipulation.
• Google, Meta, X, Reddit and other platforms have been directed to remove or disable access to specified URLs, covering more than 150 links.
• The Court has also directed certain platforms and domain providers to disclose subscriber and IP-log information where applicable.
• Tabu’s suit alleged misuse through manipulated obscene content, fake booking accounts, unauthorised merchandise and a fabricated statement.
• The order is interim and does not finally determine the allegations in the commercial suit.

The Delhi High Court has granted actor Tabu an ex-parte interim injunction protecting her name, image, voice, likeness and other personality attributes from unauthorised use, including through artificial intelligence, deepfakes, face morphing and other digital technologies.

Justice Jyoti Singh issued the interim directions in a commercial suit filed by Tabu, who alleged that her identity was being exploited online without her authorisation for commercial and other purposes. The Court has directed major digital platforms, including Google, Meta, X and Reddit, to remove or disable access to specified URLs containing allegedly unauthorised and objectionable material. The directions cover more than 150 identified URLs.

The order also extends to the use of Tabu’s personality attributes through websites, mobile applications, social media, the Metaverse and other physical or virtual mediums. The Court found that Tabu had established a prima facie case for interim protection and that she faced a likelihood of irreparable harm if the alleged misuse continued.

AI-generated and manipulated content at centre of dispute

A significant part of Tabu’s case concerns allegedly manipulated and AI-generated obscene material using her identity.

According to the plaint, excerpts from the actor’s films, interviews and public appearances were allegedly edited, slowed down or zoomed in on intimate portions before being circulated online. Tabu alleged that such material was being used to attract viewers and generate revenue.

The Court considered the alleged dissemination of manipulated content, particularly where material was sensationalised for monetary gain, capable of causing harm to Tabu’s reputation, goodwill and commercial value.

The injunction expressly covers Artificial Intelligence, Generative AI, Machine Learning, deepfakes, face morphing and GIFs. It also restrains unauthorised exploitation of Tabu’s stage name, her name as recorded in the proceedings, photographs, images, movie stills, voice recordings and duplications, signatures and initials.

The broader scope of the order reflects the way personality-related misuse can occur across multiple digital formats rather than through conventional publication alone.

Fake booking account and merchandise also cited

Tabu also raised concerns about an Instagram account allegedly offering bookings for her appearances and performances.

The actor told the Court that she had no association with the account and had not authorised anyone to make bookings on her behalf. The account was alleged to have used her name, photographs and videos and had around 2,000 followers, potentially creating an impression of an official association.

The suit also raised concerns over websites allegedly selling merchandise featuring Tabu’s photographs, including mugs, posters, calendars, hoodies and sweatshirts. Her counsel argued that such products amounted to unauthorised commercial exploitation of the actor’s identity.

The Court emphasised that personality rights are not limited to financial interests. It noted that unauthorised exploitation can also affect a person’s privacy, personality and right to live with dignity.

Court orders platforms to remove specified URLs

The High Court issued platform-specific directions for removing or disabling access to identified material.

Google was directed to act against 21 URLs in one set, eight in another and five in a third. Meta was directed to act against 73 URLs in Document-A, 28 in Document-B and five in Document-C.

X was directed to remove three identified URLs, while eBay was directed to take down URLs listed at serial numbers 15 to 20 in the relevant document. Reddit was also directed to remove specified URLs.

The combined directions cover more than 150 specifically identified URLs, alongside other directions concerning domains and online material.

The Court gave the platforms 36 hours from receipt of the order to comply with the relevant takedown directions.

Subscriber and IP details sought

The Court has also directed Google, Meta, X, Reddit and GoDaddy, where applicable, to provide Basic Subscriber Information and IP-log details connected with the accounts or material identified in the proceedings.

The direction could help identify the individuals or entities allegedly operating accounts and publishing or distributing material that Tabu says misuses her identity.

The order therefore goes beyond removing existing content and addresses the identification of those allegedly responsible for the online material.

Court restrains allegedly fabricated statement

Another element of the case concerns an online publication that carried a statement purportedly attributed to Tabu.

The actor maintained that she had never made the statement and that her team had issued clarifications to leading newspapers. Despite those denials, the material allegedly remained available online.

The Court described the continued publication of the disputed statement as an “egregious act”, expressing concern that it appeared to sensationalise the material and generate monetary gain.

The concerned publisher has been restrained from further circulating or disseminating the statement and directed to delete it from its platforms within three days of receiving the order.

Delhi HC cites earlier personality-rights cases

In granting interim protection, the Court referred to earlier Delhi High Court decisions recognising personality rights, including .M. Entertainment v. Baby Gift House, Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India and Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store.

The Court observed that unauthorised commercial use of a well-known person’s name, image or other distinctive attributes can infringe personality rights, dilute an individual’s identity and enable third parties to derive unearned commercial benefit.

The Delhi High Court has issued similar personality-rights protections in other recent cases involving the unauthorised digital use of public figures’ identities. The Court’s official records also show the continuing use of injunctions addressing AI, deepfakes and other forms of digital manipulation in personality-rights disputes. ([Delhi High Court][1])

Interim order does not decide final allegations

The Court has registered Tabu’s plaint as a commercial suit and issued summons to the defendants. The remaining defendants have been given 30 days from receipt of the summons to file their written statements.

Proceedings concerning discovery, production and inspection of documents are also underway. The relevant application has been listed for December 7, 2026.

The interim injunction will remain in force until the next hearing, subject to further orders from the Court.

The order does not constitute a final finding on the allegations made by Tabu. It is an interim measure granted after the Court found that she had made out a prima facie case and that continued unauthorised use of her identity could result in irreparable harm.