One respondent was spared and the rest were told to take content down: the Bombay High Court has granted ad-interim relief in the Rupali Ganguly personality rights suit against AI-generated, deepfake and other objectionable material that, the television actor says, uses her name and image without her consent.
Mumbai: Huts and Looms Pvt. Ltd. is the only respondent left out of the Bombay High Court’s order on Thursday directing the respondents in television actor Rupali Ganguly’s personality rights suit to take down objectionable content about her available online [Rupali Ganguly v. Respondents (full case title awaited)].
Justice Madhav Jamdar, sitting singly, passed the ad-interim order on November 5, 2026. Huts and Looms told the Court that it had used only images that Ganguly herself had shared through her stylist.
What the Court ordered
At the ad-interim stage, Justice Jamdar directed all the respondents, other than Huts and Looms Pvt. Ltd., to take down the objectionable content concerning Ganguly. The allegations in the plaint have not yet been tested, and the respondents will be able to contest the suit as it proceeds.
The actor’s case
Represented by advocate Sana Raees Khan, Ganguly came to the High Court complaining that several online portals were using her images and video clips without authorisation, and that some had created deepfake and AI-based images and clips for commercial use.
Her plaint describes a 25-year career in television, including shows such as Kahani Ghar Ghar Ki, Sanjeevani, Sarabhai vs Sarabhai and Anupama, and lists awards including the Star Parivaar award and the Indian Television Academy award. It says her work has made her a recognised household name and one of the highest-paid actors in Indian television.
“Plaintiff is one of the most celebrated and versatile actors of her generation in the industry and has immensely contributed to the development of Indian cinema. She is also a well-known public figure and icon amongst all age groups.”
What the plaint alleges
Ganguly claims exclusive control over the commercial use of her personality, including her name, signature, voice, image, likeness and mannerisms, and argues that no one can use, imitate or misappropriate these traits without her permission.
According to the plaint, traders print her name and photographs on posters, T-shirts and covers to suggest a false association or endorsement, and some entities falsely present her as available for celebrity events and promotions through them.
“Using her image and likeness to show a false association with them for commercial gain… This has been done without the authorisation of the plaintiff solely to boost their own profits.”
The suit further alleges that AI and image-editing tools have been used to morph her face onto other people’s bodies, and that such material has appeared on sexually explicit websites. The plaint describes this content as made without her consent and as violating her modesty and dignity, and it asked for directions to the respondents to remove all such content immediately.
Why the order matters
As AI tools make it cheap to clone a face or voice, personality rights suits by actors and public figures have multiplied. Courts in Delhi and Mumbai have repeatedly granted quick interim relief where content is morphed, sexually explicit or used to sell products by implying an endorsement that never existed. The Bombay High Court’s order adds a well-known television actor to that list and confirms that the protection is not limited to film stars.
The carve-out for Huts and Looms is also significant. By excluding a party that says it used only images supplied by the actor’s own stylist, the Court has signalled that personality rights orders should target unauthorised and harmful uses, not every use of a celebrity’s image. Whether that party’s use was in fact authorised will be examined as the suit goes forward.
Case Title: Rupali Ganguly v. Respondents (full case title awaited)
Bench: Justice Madhav Jamdar, Bombay High Court
Date of Order: November 5, 2026
Appearance: Advocate Sana Raees Khan for the plaintiff