Cricketer Abhishek Sharma Moves Delhi High Court Seeking Protection of Personality Rights
Punjab Batter Seeks Judicial Protection Against AI-Generated, Misleading and Unauthorized Online Use of His Name, Image and Likeness
Indian cricketer Abhishek Sharma has approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights against the alleged unauthorized use of his name, image, likeness and identity across digital platforms. The suit also raises concerns over the growing misuse of artificial intelligence (AI) to create manipulated content that allegedly misrepresents public personalities.
The matter came up before Justice Jyoti Singh, who examined the preliminary record but declined to grant immediate interim relief after noticing discrepancies between the URLs identified in the plaint and the screenshots placed before the Court. The judge clarified that the Court was not disinclined to grant protection but required the plaintiff to place proper material on record before any substantive order could be passed.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for Meta took the Court through eight allegedly infringing URLs. After comparing the screenshots with the annexures filed in the suit, the Court observed that the links did not correspond with the tabulated details in the pleadings, making it difficult to issue takedown directions at this stage. Justice Singh therefore directed Sharma to file an additional affidavit containing accurate screenshots matching the impugned URLs.
The dispute primarily concerns the alleged circulation of AI-generated and digitally manipulated content featuring Sharma. His counsel argued that an original photograph of the cricketer had allegedly been altered using artificial intelligence to create a misleading image, thereby exploiting his identity without consent. According to the plaintiff, such manipulation goes beyond ordinary online commentary and amounts to an infringement of his personality rights.
During the proceedings, Justice Singh made an important observation on the evolving legal landscape, remarking that there is often a “thin line” between defamation and personality rights. The Court noted that online disputes involving AI-generated or manipulated content frequently involve overlapping issues of reputation, privacy and unauthorized commercial exploitation, making the law in this area an evolving one.
Meta, however, argued that not every objectionable online post amounts to a violation of personality rights. The platform submitted that false or misleading statements generally fall within the domains of defamation or privacy law and cautioned against expanding personality rights to encompass all adverse online content. It also highlighted the practical difficulty of monitoring thousands of URLs where a claimant seeks removal of allegedly infringing material.
The Delhi High Court has, in recent months, emerged as a leading forum for protecting the personality rights of public figures against unauthorized digital exploitation. Similar relief has previously been granted to personalities including Shashi Tharoor, Pawan Kalyan, Ravi Kishan, Sunil Gavaskar, Raj Shamani and several actors, journalists and public figures whose identities were allegedly misused through AI-generated content or unauthorized commercial exploitation.
The case highlights the increasing legal challenges posed by generative AI, deepfakes and digital image manipulation. As AI tools become capable of creating highly realistic but fabricated images and videos, courts are increasingly being called upon to balance freedom of expression, intermediary liability, reputation and personality rights in the digital ecosystem. Legal experts believe the outcome of Sharma’s petition could further shape India’s emerging jurisprudence on AI-related personality rights.
The Delhi High Court has now listed the matter for 9 July 2026, by which time Abhishek Sharma is expected to file the additional affidavit with the requisite screenshots. The Court will thereafter consider whether interim injunctions, takedown directions or other protective measures are warranted pending final adjudication of the suit.
