This is an ad-interim order, not a final determination: it grants relief only in terms of prayer clauses (h) to (r), not (a) to (g), and the suit is listed next on 17 December 2026. Two defendants appeared through counsel, so the order was not wholly ex parte.
- Case
- Ananya Suyash Panday v. Fankaar Live Experiences Private Limited and Others
- Court
- High Court of Bombay
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026:BHC-OS:24306
- Bench
- Madhav J. Jamdar
- Judgment by
- Madhav J. Jamdar
- Case numbers
- Interim Application (L) No. 38621 of 2026 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 38397 of 2026; CNR No. HCBM020386232026
- Outcome
- Ad-interim injunction granted in terms of prayer clauses (h) to (r) of the interim application; matter listed on 17 December 2026.
The decision
The Bombay High Court has granted actor Ananya Panday ad-interim protection against the unauthorised use of her name, image and likeness, including in AI-generated and morphed content. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar passed the order on 5 November 2026 in her commercial intellectual property suit, granting relief in terms of prayer clauses (h) to (r) of her interim application. The matter is listed next on 17 December 2026.
The order restrains a group of defendants from using the actor's Personality Attributes — her name, image, photographs, voice, likeness, signature and other distinctive attributes — and directs e-commerce platforms to de-list unauthorised merchandise, social-media platforms to remove infringing content, domain registrars to lock or suspend websites hosting AI chatbots impersonating her, and the Ministries of Electronics and Information Technology and Telecommunications to block access to offending websites.
The suit
Ananya Suyash Panday, known professionally as Ananya Panday, commenced her acting career in 2019 and has since appeared in a range of films and digital series. Her suit seeks protection of her personality rights, publicity rights and right to privacy, which she says flow from Article 21 of the Constitution, her performer's rights under sections 38, 38A and 38B of the Copyright Act 1957, and the common law of passing off and dilution.
The plaint complains of four kinds of misuse. First, websites falsely claiming to be authorised to procure or facilitate her professional engagements. Second, unauthorised merchandise — posters, mugs, calendars, pillows, phone cases and other products — bearing her photographs and images. Third, AI-generated, morphed and digitally manipulated pornographic and sexually explicit images and videos purportedly depicting her. Fourth, websites offering AI-enabled chatbots, characters and simulations that purport to be her and generate statements and responses attributed to her, including of a sexually suggestive and obscene nature.
The suit names 25 defendants, including the operators of the booking and merchandise websites, e-commerce intermediaries, social-media intermediaries, domain registrars, the Ministries of Electronics and Information Technology and Telecommunications as pro forma defendants, and unidentified persons impleaded as John Doe, or Ashok Kumar, defendants.
The question before the court
The interim application sought urgent protection pending the suit. At this stage the plaintiff sought ad-interim relief only in terms of prayer clauses (h) to (r) — the injunctions and directions against the defendants and intermediaries — rather than the full relief in the application. The question was whether, on the plaint and the documents annexed to it, a case was made out for that protection now, before the defendants had a full opportunity to respond.
Personality rights and the duties of intermediaries
The court held, on a perusal of the plaint, that the plaintiff's right to control her Personality Attributes — her name, voice, image, likeness, persona, signature and other attributes — has been violated, infringing her right to privacy, including her rights of personal autonomy, bodily privacy and dignity. Her right to privacy is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court also noted the obligations cast on intermediaries under Rule 3(1)(b) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021, which was incorporated by an amendment on 28 October 2022, after the Supreme Court's judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015) 5 SCC 1. It referred to this court's decision in Akshay Hari Om Bhatia v. John Doe (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 4044), which had noted the rule.
The directions granted
Holding that a case was made out for the grant of ad-interim injunction, the court directed relief in terms of prayer clauses (h) to (r). In substance: defendants 1 to 7, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 25 are restrained from using the plaintiff's Personality Attributes and Performances, including by creating AI-generated, morphed or obscene content, and from passing off goods or services as authorised or endorsed by her, and from infringing her performer's rights under sections 38, 38A and 38B of the Copyright Act, including through artificial intelligence, face morphing or superimposition.
E-commerce intermediaries — defendants 8, 9, 10 and 13 — must remove or disable access to the unauthorised product listings identified in the plaint and take reasonable and practicable measures to prevent their continued availability. Social-media intermediaries — defendants 16 to 19 — must remove or disable access to the infringing content at the URLs identified in the plaint and take measures to prevent its continued availability, including re-uploads.
Domain registrars — defendants 20, 21 and 22 — must lock or suspend the domain names and websites hosting AI-enabled chatbots, characters and simulations purporting to be the plaintiff. The Ministries of Electronics and Information Technology and Telecommunications — defendants 23 and 24 — must take steps in accordance with law to block or disable access to the websites hosting the manipulated pornographic content. The intermediaries must also, on being notified by the plaintiff, remove identical or substantially similar content, including re-uploads, mirrors and redirects. Defendants 7, 11, 12 and 25 must deliver up or destroy unauthorised goods, merchandise and materials bearing the plaintiff's Personality Attributes.
What happens now
The relief is ad-interim: it holds the position until the application is heard further, and it extends only to prayer clauses (h) to (r). Prayers (a) to (g) were not granted at this stage. The matter is listed on 17 December 2026.
The order was not wholly ex parte. Counsel appeared for defendant 20 and, through video conference, for defendant 21. The remaining defendants, including the unidentified John Doe defendant, did not appear.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
Personality rights in India are not a single statute but a bundle: the right to privacy under Article 21, the performer's rights in sections 38 to 38B of the Copyright Act, and the common-law action for passing off. This order shows how they work together — privacy protects the control of one's identity, the Copyright Act protects the performances, and passing off protects the public from being misled into thinking the actor endorses something she does not.
Notice the architecture of the relief. The court did not only restrain the primary wrongdoers; it directed each layer of the distribution chain — sellers, platforms, registrars and the government — to do the thing only that layer can do. That is the practical shape of an injunction against online misuse: the content lives on infrastructure, so the order has to reach the infrastructure.
Finally, note the John Doe device. Where the persons behind the misuse are unidentified, the suit names them as John Doe, or Ashok Kumar, defendants, so that the injunction can bind whoever is found to be responsible. And note what ad-interim means: the court has found a prima facie case on the plaint, not decided the suit. The defendants will have their say on 17 December 2026.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- On what basis did the court hold that the plaintiff's right to control her Personality Attributes was violated, and which constitutional provision did it rely on?
- What relief did the court grant at this ad-interim stage, and what did it deliberately not grant?
- Which intermediaries were directed to act, and what was each group told to do?
