Kriti Sanon Moves Delhi High Court for Protection Against AI-Generated Impersonation and Identity Misuse

Actor Kriti Sanon has approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection against the alleged unauthorised use of her identity, including her name, photographs, likeness and other personal attributes. Her petition also raises concerns about AI-generated content and digital impersonation, bringing the growing challenge of protecting celebrity identities in the age of generative artificial intelligence into focus.

The matter came before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav on October 16, 2026. Rather than immediately issuing a comprehensive ruling, the court asked Sanon’s lawyer, advocate Pravin Anand, to submit relevant judgments, research papers and other legal material explaining the scope of personality rights. The case is scheduled for its next hearing on October 29, 2026.

Why Kriti Sanon Is Seeking Legal Protection?

Personality rights concern the use of identifiable aspects of an individual’s identity, including their name, face, voice, photographs and likeness. These rights become particularly relevant when a person’s identity is allegedly used without permission for commercial gain or in a way that creates a false impression of endorsement or involvement.

Sanon’s petition seeks protection against alleged unauthorised exploitation of her identity, including through AI-generated material and digital impersonation. The specific allegations and the full scope of the relief sought should be read alongside the court record; the available reporting does not establish that every form of misuse mentioned in the broader debate has occurred in her case.

The issue has become more complicated as AI tools make it easier to generate realistic images, videos and other material resembling public figures. Such content can potentially blur the distinction between authentic communication and fabricated material, particularly when a celebrity appears to endorse a product or make a statement they never actually made.

What the Delhi High Court Has Asked For?

During the October 16 hearing, Justice Kaurav asked Sanon’s counsel to place a compilation of relevant judicial precedents and research material on record. The court is examining the legal principles governing personality rights, including which personal attributes may receive protection and whether the High Court’s Intellectual Property Division has jurisdiction to hear such disputes.

According to reporting by The Indian Express and legal publication LiveLaw, Anand submitted that personality rights could cover a person’s name, face, voice, image, photographs and videos, including their unauthorised commercial use.

The court indicated that it would consider the material before passing a comprehensive order. This is an important distinction: the reported hearing was a step towards examining the legal issues, not a final judgment granting Sanon the requested protection.

The next hearing on October 29 is expected to provide a further opportunity for the court to examine the legal submissions. The precise outcome will depend on the proceedings and the material placed before it.

Why Personality Rights Matter in the AI Era?

The case comes amid a wider series of personality-rights disputes involving actors, sportspersons, content creators and other public figures. Delhi High Court proceedings in other cases have addressed allegations involving unauthorised commercial use of identities, misleading digital material and AI-generated impersonation.

These disputes raise several connected questions. Can a public figure prevent the commercial use of their likeness without consent? How should courts assess digitally generated material that imitates a real person? And what legal remedies are appropriate when a fake image, video or endorsement circulates online?

There is no need to treat every use of a celebrity’s image as unlawful. News reporting, criticism, commentary, artistic expression and other legitimate uses may raise different considerations from commercial impersonation. The legal assessment depends on the facts, applicable law and the relief being sought.

That distinction makes the court’s request for a broader legal review significant. A clearer understanding of personality rights could help courts assess future disputes more consistently, although the scope of any eventual ruling in Sanon’s case remains unknown.

What Happens Next in Kriti Sanon’s Case?

The immediate next step is the further hearing scheduled for October 29, 2026. The court will have the opportunity to consider the legal research and precedents submitted by Sanon’s counsel and examine the questions surrounding the scope of personality rights and the appropriate forum for such claims.

As of the reporting available on October 17, no final ruling granting the requested protection had been reported. The case should therefore be understood as an ongoing legal proceeding rather than a completed victory or a blanket ban on the use of Sanon’s identity.

The Celebrity Hour Take

The significance of this case extends beyond one actor’s request for protection. AI-generated media is making identity misuse a more complex problem, while the law must also preserve space for legitimate reporting, commentary and creative expression.

The court’s request for research suggests that it wants to examine the legal framework carefully before issuing a comprehensive order. The key development to watch is whether the proceedings produce greater clarity on the protections available to public figures and how those protections apply to AI-generated impersonation and unauthorised commercial use.

For now, the central facts are clear: Sanon has approached the Delhi High Court, the court has sought further legal material, and the matter is listed for October 29. The final scope of any protection will depend on subsequent court proceedings.

Sources & Verification

This report was prepared using the supplied Bollywood Hungama article and cross-checked against coverage by The Indian Express and LiveLaw. The hearing date, the court’s request for legal research and the next hearing date are supported by those reports. No final order granting the requested protection was identified in the material reviewed.