Aishwarya Rai Bachchan Moves Delhi HC Against Identity Misuse, AI-Generated Obscene Content
Senior advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, said that many websites are selling merchandise by using her name for which they have no authorisation.
Bollywood star Aishwarya Rai Bachchan on Tuesday urged the Delhi High Court to protect her personality rights and to restrain certain persons from unauthorisedly using her name, images and AI-generated pornographic content.
Justice Tejas Karia orally hinted that he would pass an ad-interim order cautioning the defendants.
Senior advocate Sandeep Sethi, appearing for Rai Bachchan said that many websites are selling merchandise by using her name for which they have no authorisation.
Sethi named a website aishwaryaworld.com and said that it is not authorised. Another example Sethi gave was about an entity named ‘Aishwarya Nation Wealth’, which records her name as chairperson. Sethi argued that his client has no knowledge of this nor entered into any conversation with them.
Sethi said the actor seeks to enforce her publicity and personality rights and contended that some completely unreal intimate photographs were being circulated on the internet.
According to The Indian Express, Sethi said, “These are not images belonging to Aishwarya Rai, nor has she authorised such images. All are AI-generated. (There are) some intimate photographs which are completely unreal."
"There can be no right in their favour to use her images, likeness or persona. A gentleman is collecting money merely by putting my name and face," Sethi argued. "Her name and likeness is being used to satisfy someone's sexual desires. This is very unfortunate," he said.
Rai was also represented through advocates Pravin Anand and Dhruv Anand. The high court listed the matter for further proceedings before the joint registrar on Nov. 7 and before the court on Jan. 15, 2026.
Advocate Mamta Rani who reprsented Google said that specific URLs would have to be provided for to take them down. Justice Karia pointed out that although a single, unified order would be ideal, the different violations involved might necessitate separate injunctions for each defendant.
With inputs from PTI
