The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to Aniruddhacharya’s personality rights over alleged deepfake and AI content. During the hearing, the judge remarked that a spiritual preacher should be above criticism and not attached to reputation.
The Delhi High Court recently heard a matter involving religious preacher Aniruddhacharya, who approached the court seeking protection of his personality rights after several viral video clips of his remarks sparked controversy and led to multiple cases.
During the hearing, the Court made several observations about criticism, jurisdiction, and the role of public religious figures in society, while also granting interim protection to the preacher’s personality rights, particularly in relation to alleged deepfake and AI-generated content.
The matter came up before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela of the Delhi High Court. At the very beginning of the hearing, the judge questioned why the case was filed in Delhi when the preacher is based in Vrindavan.
As the counsel began explaining jurisdiction, the Court made a strong observation about online content and jurisdiction, saying,
“Impugned material is on Mars also, maybe Jupiter also. Where are these websites accessible? Who is accessing it here?”
The preacher’s lawyer argued that most of Aniruddhacharya’s audience and viewership is based in Delhi, which is why the petition was filed in the Delhi High Court. However, the Court continued to question why Delhi was chosen when other courts also had jurisdiction.
The Court remarked,
“Why here? Tell us why it is such an issue to go elsewhere? Why not there? You have jurisdiction all over the world, including Timbaktu. Why not Timbaktu? Please tell us. If the Calcutta High Court passes an order, will Google and others not carry it out? The courts at Allahabad and Lucknow won’t do it?”
When the counsel then informed the Court that the preacher also has business operations in Delhi, the judge responded,
“Oh, you have companies also?”
The Court further questioned what it described as a special preference for filing such matters in Delhi and said it wanted to understand this trend. The judge observed, “understand this love for Delhi”. He further added,
“Why is this extraordinary jurisdiction put on us when the whole country’s High Court and District courts are available? There is no civil court that cannot pass the same order,”
During the hearing, Justice Gedela also gave philosophical advice to the religious preacher regarding criticism and reputation. The judge said,
“Speaking off the record, you are supposed to be above all this. You are above criticism, appreciation and recognition; you are above every desire. You are not attached to your reputation. Are you? Can’t be. If you are, it would be antithetical to what you propound,”
The preacher’s counsel argued that the viral clips and online content were damaging his image and reputation, and that people may stop taking him seriously because of the circulated content. In response, the Court made an important observation on freedom of expression and criticism, stating,
“The question is that if you propound a philosophy, there will always be someone who would not agree with it. A person technically has a plausible right to dispute what you say. Adi Shankaracharya never went around filing defamatory suits, he used to debate and tell them that you are wrong,”
The counsel also informed the Court that some video clips of the preacher’s remarks were being uploaded on a betting and gaming website, and that some of the content was allegedly generated using artificial intelligence and deepfake technology to show him making statements he never actually made. This, according to the counsel, was actionable and required court intervention.
At this point, the Court also drew a distinction between religious figures and film celebrities in the context of personality rights and publicity. The judge said,
“You also have to understand a lot of things. When you propound something of this nature? You are not a personality like a film actor. For them, maybe it is another way of getting more popular,”
The preacher’s counsel clarified before the Court that the issue was not about monetisation or commercial misuse of his videos, but about reputation and faith of his followers. He said that even if one follower starts believing the false content, it would harm his image. However, the Court responded by saying that such a situation would not necessarily reflect on the preacher himself.
The Court observed,
“It means belief is weak; it is not a reflection on you,”
The counsel again raised the issue of deepfakes and AI-generated videos, stating that the preacher was being shown as making remarks that he never made. Taking note of this concern, the Delhi High Court acknowledged the issue of deepfake content and passed an interim order granting protection to Aniruddhacharya’s personality rights.
This case highlights important legal issues related to personality rights, online content, jurisdiction of courts in internet cases, deepfakes, and freedom of speech. The Court’s observations also underline a broader legal principle that public figures, especially those who preach or express opinions publicly, must be open to criticism and disagreement, while at the same time, the law must protect individuals from false, manipulated, or AI-generated content that can harm their reputation.
The matter is expected to be heard further as the Court examines the issue of deepfake content and misuse of the preacher’s identity online, while the interim protection on personality rights will remain in force for now.
Click Here to Read More Reports On the Aniruddhacharya
