Delhi High Court Protects Tabu’s Personality Rights, Orders 150+ URLs Taken Down Over AI and Identity Misuse

Tabu has secured significant interim protection from the Delhi High Court against the unauthorised online exploitation of her identity, including alleged misuse involving artificial intelligence, deepfakes, face morphing and objectionable manipulated content.

Justice Jyoti Singh passed an ex parte ad-interim injunction on August 6, 2026, after the actor approached the court seeking protection of her personality and publicity rights.

The directions go well beyond a general order asking websites to remove content.

Google, Meta, X, Reddit and other intermediaries were directed to remove or disable access to specifically identified material, with the order covering more than 150 URLs across platforms. Certain intermediaries were also ordered to provide subscriber information and IP-log details that could help identify people behind anonymous accounts or material alleged to be exploiting Tabu’s identity.

The case, titled Tabassum Jamal Hashmi v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., is another significant example of Indian celebrities turning to courts as generative AI makes realistic manipulation of a person's face, voice and identity easier to produce and distribute.

What Protection Did the Delhi High Court Give Tabu?

The scope of Tabu's case extends beyond conventional image copyright.

According to legal reporting on the order, the actor sought protection against unauthorised exploitation of personality attributes including her name, image, voice and photographs, as well as misuse through AI-generated content and other digital manipulation.

Justice Singh found that Tabu had made out a prima facie case for interim protection.

The resulting injunction addresses alleged misuse through artificial intelligence, deepfakes, face morphing and other technologies, while the proceedings also involve unauthorised commercial exploitation such as merchandise using her identity.

This distinction is important.

The case is not simply about somebody reposting a photograph of Tabu. It concerns the broader question of whether recognisable elements of a celebrity's identity can be manipulated or commercially exploited without authorisation.

More Than 150 URLs Were Specifically Identified

The scale of the takedown directions is one of the most notable aspects of the order.

According to the reported breakdown, Google was directed to remove or disable 21 URLs in one set, eight in another and five in a third.

Meta received substantially larger directions: 73 URLs in one document, 28 in another and five in a third.

X was directed to act against three identified URLs, while eBay and Reddit were also ordered to take action against specified material.

Taken together, the directions cover more than 150 identified URLs.

The relevant intermediaries were generally given 36 hours after receiving the order to remove or disable access to the specified content.

That makes the order considerably more concrete than a broad declaration that Tabu possesses personality rights.

It identifies material and gives platforms specific compliance obligations.

Platforms Were Also Asked to Disclose Information

The court's directions did not stop with content removal.

Google, Meta, X, Reddit and GoDaddy, where applicable, were also directed to disclose Basic Subscriber Information and IP-log details connected with accounts or material involved in the proceedings.

Bar & Bench reports that the information was to be supplied within three weeks.

This part of the order could prove especially important for personality-rights litigation.

Taking down an offending post can restrict its immediate circulation. Obtaining account information, subject to the court's directions and applicable law, potentially allows a plaintiff to pursue the individuals responsible for anonymous misuse rather than dealing only with the platform hosting it.

Why Did Tabu Go to Court?

Tabu, whose legal name is Tabassum Jamal Hashmi, approached the Delhi High Court earlier in August seeking protection of her personality and publicity rights.

LiveLaw reported on August 4 that the matter initially came before Justice Jyoti Singh, who asked her counsel to file a fresh memo of parties after issues were identified with details relating to some defendants. The case returned on August 6, when the interim relief was granted.

Her grievance covered several different forms of alleged exploitation.

Legal reporting says she complained of AI-generated obscene material and unauthorised merchandise using her identity or personality attributes. Other reporting on the proceedings also refers to impersonation and unauthorised commercial exploitation online.

Because the case remains at an interim stage, these underlying acts should still be described as alleged misuse identified in Tabu's suit, rather than treating every allegation against every defendant as finally adjudicated.

This Is About Personality Rights, Not Just AI

Artificial intelligence understandably dominates the headlines surrounding the case, but describing the order purely as an “AI ruling” would be incomplete.

Tabu sought protection of her broader personality and publicity rights.

Those concepts concern commercially and personally identifiable aspects of an individual — including elements such as name, likeness, image and voice.

Generative AI creates a new layer of difficulty because it can imitate those attributes without simply reproducing an existing photograph or recording.

A manipulated video, for example, can create the impression that a celebrity said or did something that never happened.

The issue therefore moves beyond unauthorised copying into unauthorised simulation of identity.

That is what makes cases such as Tabu's increasingly relevant to actors, singers and other public personalities whose commercial value is closely connected with recognisable attributes of their identity.

Tabu Is Part of a Wider Personality-Rights Push

Tabu's case is not developing in isolation.

While reporting on her initial petition, LiveLaw noted that courts have recently dealt with personality-rights proceedings involving numerous public figures, including Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, Karan Johar, R Madhavan, Allu Arjun, Mohanlal, Kajol, Nagarjuna and others.

That broader legal trend matters more than the celebrity names themselves.

Digital manipulation has lowered the technical barrier for creating misleading endorsements, fake accounts, synthetic videos and unauthorised commercial material.

For celebrities, the potential harm is therefore no longer restricted to a fake advertisement using a photograph.

A person's face can be morphed, a voice can be synthetically reproduced and fabricated audiovisual material can be made to appear authentic.

Tabu's case shows how personality-rights litigation is increasingly being used to address several of those problems together.

What the Order Does - and Does Not - Mean

The terminology surrounding the ruling needs care.

Tabu has received meaningful legal protection, but the August 6 order is an interim injunction.

It should not be described as the final disposal of the lawsuit.

Nor does an order directing removal of more than 150 URLs mean that the Delhi High Court has somehow ordered every image, discussion or unauthorised mention of Tabu removed from the internet.

The directions concern identified uses and defendants falling within the scope of the proceedings and the court's order.

The distinction is particularly important in personality-rights reporting because legitimate journalism, commentary and other lawful uses of a public figure's identity raise different considerations from deceptive impersonation, obscene manipulation or unauthorised commercial exploitation.

The current case should therefore be understood through the specific conduct and material challenged before the court.

The Celebrity Hour Take

Tabu's case illustrates why personality rights are becoming an increasingly important celebrity-industry issue in the generative-AI era.

A decade ago, unauthorised celebrity exploitation might typically have meant a photograph appearing in an advertisement or a person's name being attached to merchandise.

AI changes the scale of the problem.

A celebrity's face can now be inserted into synthetic material. Their voice can potentially be imitated. Fake videos can give viewers the impression that they endorsed a product, expressed an opinion or participated in content they never created.

For actors in particular, face, voice and likeness aren't incidental attributes. They form part of the professional identity through which they earn a living.

The other important feature of the Tabu order is practical enforcement.

A personality-rights declaration means little if harmful material remains online indefinitely. Here, the court combined interim protection with platform-specific takedown directions and requests for identifying information connected with some anonymous activity.

The long-term legal questions will continue to develop as courts confront increasingly sophisticated synthetic media.

But Tabu's case demonstrates where the immediate battle is already taking place: not over whether AI exists, but over who gets to decide how a recognisable person's identity is digitally reproduced and commercially exploited.

Sources & Verification

This report was independently researched using Delhi High Court-focused legal reporting on Tabassum Jamal Hashmi v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., including coverage of both the August 4 hearing and Justice Jyoti Singh's August 6 interim order. Bar & Bench and LiveLaw were prioritised for the procedural and legal details, while additional established reporting was used to cross-check the platform-specific takedown directions.

The Celebrity Hour has deliberately described the ruling as interim protection and the challenged activity as alleged or unauthorised content identified in the proceedings where appropriate. The article does not treat the interim injunction as a final judgment on every defendant or allegation.