Shashi Tharoor seeks court ban on deepfakes

A deepfake case hit Indian politics this week in the most predictable and unnerving way possible. Shashi Tharoor — a Congress MP and one of India’s most recognizable public speakers — went to the Delhi High Court after AI-made videos spread online showing him praising Pakistan and speaking on other politically explosive topics. The basic claim is simple: these clips are fake, they are damaging, and normal takedowns were not enough because removed versions kept reappearing. The court moved fast and signaled that protection was coming. ### What did Tharoor ask the court to do? He asked for an injunction against the creation, publication, circulation, and republication of deepfakes and other manipulated media using his identity. That was not limited to his face on a video. The plea covered his name, image, voice, and broader personality rights — basically the bundle of traits that make a public figure instantly recognizable online. He also wanted platforms and unknown defendants to take down existing content and stop fresh uploads. (livelaw.in) ### Why is “personality rights” the key here? Because India still does not have a clean, single deepfake statute that solves this problem on its own. So courts have been using personality and publicity rights as a practical legal handle. In Tharoor’s case, that let the court treat the fake clips not just as misinformation, but as unauthorized exploitation of a person’s identity. That matters because it gives judges a familiar route to quick interim orders instead of waiting for a slower, more abstract fight over AI policy. (livelaw.in) ### What did the Delhi High Court actually do? Justice Mini Pushkarna issued notice on Tharoor’s suit and made clear that interim protection would be granted. By the end of Friday’s hearing, the court restrained misuse or imitation of Tharoor’s name, visual likeness, image, voice, manner of speaking, and even his “signature oratorial cadence” and “highly refined vocabulary” for deepfakes, morphed videos, or audio. That wording is striking — it shows the court treating style itself as part of identity when AI tools can clone more than a face. (livelaw.in) ### Why did the court move so quickly? Because the harm in a deepfake case is front-loaded. A fake political clip does most of its damage in the first burst of circulation, especially during an election cycle. Tharoor’s lawyers argued that even after some content was removed, it kept resurfacing in new links and reposts. That is the whack-a-mole problem of synthetic media — you are not fighting one file, you are fighting infinite copies. (livelaw.in) ### Why does Pakistan matter in this case? Because the alleged fake clips were crafted around one of the most combustible themes in Indian politics. A fabricated video of an Indian opposition leader “praising Pakistan” is not random satire. It is built to trigger outrage, distort campaign messaging, and travel fast with almost no context. The point is less persuasion than contamination — make voters doubt the real person long enough for the clip to do its work. (livelaw.in) ### Is this an isolated case? Not really. Delhi courts have recently granted similar protection to other public figures facing AI misuse and impersonation. That does not mean the legal system has solved deepfakes. But it does mean judges are building a playbook: protect identity rights, order takedowns, rope in intermediaries, and let plaintiffs add fresh offending links without restarting the whole case. (timesofindia.indiatimes.com) ### So what is the real takeaway? This is not just about one politician and one fake clip. It is about how courts are improvising rules for an internet where a voice, face, and speaking style can be cloned in minutes. The immediate win for Tharoor is faster removal. The bigger lesson is that election-season deepfakes are turning personality rights into one of the few legal tools that can move at platform speed. (livelaw.in 1) (livelaw.in 2)