The Delhi High Court has directed the takedown of deepfake and impersonating content posted on social media against Drishti IAS founder and former civil servant Vikas Divyakirti, issued summons in his suit for protection of personality rights, and directed the intermediaries to share subscriber details and IP logs of the uploaders with him.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday directed the takedown of deepfake and impersonating content posted on social media against Drishti IAS founder and former civil servant Vikas Divyakirti, while issuing summons in his suit seeking protection of his personality rights [Dr Vikas Divyakirti v. Meta Platforms Inc and Others].
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said that a detailed order with the takedown directions will be passed. The Court also issued notice on Divyakirti’s interim injunction application. The detailed order is awaited, and LawChakra has not yet reviewed it.
The plaintiff’s case
Appearing for Divyakirti, Senior Advocate Diya Kapur submitted that it is a clear case of infringement of copyright, moral rights and personality rights, with no competing rights in anyone else. She said that Divyakirti was aggrieved by social media profiles impersonating him on Instagram, which is owned by Meta Platforms, and using his images.
He is also aggrieved by deepfake content and by the use of clips of his lectures without his authorisation or licence. Kapur submitted that no argument of fair use could be made in such a case, because individuals were selectively using the clips. These are the plaintiff’s contentions, and the Court has not recorded any finding on them so far.
Meta’s response
Advocate Varun Pathak, appearing for Meta, said that 11 of the 13 offending URLs, which were Instagram reels, may be directed to be taken down, and that misinformation may be removed. He added that Divyakirti has an alternative remedy under the Information Technology Act and the Information Technology Rules. According to him, an adjudicating officer under Section 46 of the IT Act can decide disputes up to Rs 5 crore and the jurisdiction of the civil court is barred, while the Rules allow a person to approach a grievance officer and provide an appellate remedy.
Kapur responded that the Grievance Appellate Committee is overburdened and that nothing happens in that forum. She said that Divyakirti was not claiming a violation of the IT Act but of his moral and publicity rights, which can be claimed in a court of law.
The Court’s remarks on anonymous profiles
The Court questioned Pathak over the tools deployed on Instagram which, it observed, have the effect of infringing an individual’s privacy. During a discussion on fake profiles, where little personal detail is sought before an account is created, Justice Bhambhani remarked that powerful tools were being placed in the hands of persons whose identity is unknown. Comparing them with the formalities needed to own a gun in India, he said, “This (tools) is worse than a gun,” because it is available free of cost and anyone can download it. Pathak responded that an intermediary cannot ask for more details than the law requires. These were oral remarks made during the hearing and are not findings.
What the Court directed
The Court issued summons in the suit and said that a detailed order with takedown directions will be passed. It also directed the intermediaries to furnish basic subscriber information and IP logs of the uploaders of the offending URLs to Divyakirti.
Why it matters
The order adds to the steady flow of personality rights suits before the Delhi High Court, where public figures have sought protection from deepfakes, impersonation and unauthorised use of their identity online. The scope of relief in these suits has varied, and in a recent suit before the same Judge, the Court declined a blanket injunction and ordered the takedown of only obscene content.
Here, the Court has ordered takedown at the interim stage, and the argument on whether a civil suit is the proper forum, given the remedies under the IT Act and Rules, was raised by Meta and answered by the plaintiff. How the Court treats that question, and the plaintiff’s claims of copyright and moral rights infringement, will be clearer from the detailed order and the later stages of the suit. No final finding has been made on any of these contentions.
Case Title: Dr Vikas Divyakirti v. Meta Platforms Inc and Others
Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, Delhi High Court
Date of Hearing: September 29, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Diya Kapur appeared for the plaintiff, Dr Vikas Divyakirti, and Advocate Varun Pathak appeared for Meta Platforms.