In a rare and significant order, the Delhi High Court protected senior advocate Vikas Pahwa’s personality and publicity rights after his identity was misused for financial fraud. The ruling recognises that a lawyer’s reputation is built on “integrity, courtroom conduct, and trust”, not commercial endorsements.
In a landmark development that could reshape how professional identity is protected in the digital age, the Delhi High Court has extended protection of personality and publicity rights to a legal professional, possibly for the first time in India.
The Court protected the identity of senior advocate Vikas Pahwa after finding a prima facie case of misuse of his name, photographs, and credentials by unidentified websites and online platforms for financial gain.
ALSO READ: Raj Shamani Moves Delhi High Court to Protect His Personality Rights from AI Misuse
Justice Jyoti Singh observed that several “unidentified entities maintaining websites/platforms” were using Pahwa’s “credentials, images and identity” to
“induce innocent members of the public to make investments, through publications on the named websites and WhatsApp groups, among other channels.”
The Court took note of screenshots and material placed on record and restrained the defendants from
“unauthorisedly using, reproducing, publishing, communicating to the public, displaying, hosting, disseminating or exploiting in any manner whatsoever, photographs/images, name, identity and contact details”
of the senior advocate, or from
“showing any kind of association, affiliation or connection”
with him on any platform, including social media. The Court also observed that such acts amounted to copyright infringement and passing off, besides facilitating serious financial fraud.
Speaking to The Indian Express Legal, Pahwa reflected on the wider importance of the order and explained why protection of a lawyer’s identity stands on a different footing from that of celebrities.
He said the reputation of a lawyer is not built through commercial endorsements or advertising but through years of professional conduct and trust, stating,
“integrity, courtroom conduct, and trust”.
Explaining the significance of the Court’s intervention for the legal fraternity, Pahwa said,
“This order is extremely significant because it recognises a reality that has long existed but was legally under-acknowledged for the legal profession. A lawyer’s reputation is not built through movies, endorsements, or advertising—it is built over decades through integrity, courtroom conduct, client trust, and judicial confidence.”
He added,
“Unlike film stars or sportspersons, a lawyer’s ‘brand’ is inseparable from the justice delivery system itself. Impersonation of a lawyer—particularly through misuse of photographs and identity—is not merely a personal violation; it undermines public faith in the legal profession.”
According to him,
“The Delhi High Court’s order acknowledges that goodwill earned through ethical practice has independent legal value and deserves protection. This recognition is vital not just for me, but for the profession as a whole.”
Pahwa also highlighted the practical difficulties he faced in identifying and stopping the misuse of his identity, especially in the present digital environment.
He explained,
“The biggest challenge was the decentralised nature of the misuse. My images were circulating across multiple websites, WhatsApp groups, and digital platforms—often anonymously, through fake entities and across jurisdictions. By the time one instance is detected, several others have already surfaced.”
He warned about the growing risks posed by emerging technologies, saying,
“AI-enabled impersonation and deepfakes have made this problem exponentially more dangerous, allowing fraudsters to weaponise credibility within hours.”
Emphasising the need for swift action, he advised,
“My advice is simple and urgent: act immediately. Preserve evidence, issue platform notices, file complaints with the Cyber Cell, and move court without delay. Time is critical—hesitation only emboldens fraudsters and increases public harm.”
Elaborating further on the nature of the impersonation he faced, Pahwa said,
“That is the kind of threat that is posed to lawyers and other professionals whose photographs are being misused. And nowadays, as you know, in the era of Artificial Intelligence, it enables impersonation, it enables deepfakes, which is a very dangerous problem in society. But I don’t even have a deepfake; my genuine photographs he has picked up from Instagram.”
He pointed out the seriousness of the deception involved, adding,
“And his DP was in my court dress. So, that again is an act of impersonation, which required immediate action of taking down of the websites and also blocking WhatsApp by the police. Police is also acting but now the Delhi High Court has protected us. Therefore, all these actions will be taken in future.”
On the larger question of whether existing digital safeguards are adequate, Pahwa expressed dissatisfaction with the current legal framework.
He said,
“I don’t think it is sufficient because it requires a criminal investigation, because people are being cheated by using my identity.”
Criticising the existing notice-and-takedown system, he explained,
“The traditional notice-and-takedown framework is no longer sufficient. It is reactive, slow, and largely ineffective against repeat offenders who simply re-upload the same content on different platforms.”
He stressed the need for stronger obligations on digital platforms, stating,
“For verified public figures—especially professionals whose identity carries authority—platforms must move towards ‘stay-down’ obligations.”
According to him,
“Once unlawful content is judicially identified, platforms should proactively prevent its re-upload. The technology already exists; what is required now is accountability and legal clarity. Otherwise, platforms risk becoming passive enablers of fraud.”
Addressing concerns about balancing professional visibility with personal data protection, Pahwa explained how legal reputation is built and why it deserves safeguarding.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Protects Singer Kumar Sanu’s Personality Rights And Publicity Rights
He said,
“Our reputation or our goodwill is based on the hard work of decades, particularly our representation in the courts, the judgments, which are reported, which are followed, our names are used, and our names are reflected in those judgments where we have contributed to the growth of law and also the law as a whole.”
He further clarified,
“A public presence is inevitable in the legal profession—through reported judgments, public discourse, and professional visibility. But public presence does not mean public ownership of one’s identity.”
Emphasising the importance of judicial protection, he added,
“The balance lies in clear legal boundaries. Visibility must not translate into vulnerability. Judicial recognition that a professional persona has independent proprietary value allows lawyers to engage openly in public life while retaining control over misuse.”
He noted that,
“Justice Jyoti Singh’s judgment reinforces that personal data and likeness are not free commodities for exploitation.”
Pahwa also underlined that the case was not just about protecting his own reputation, but about preventing harm to the public at large.
He stated,
“This is not a personal victory; it is a public-interest intervention. The real victims are ordinary citizens who are misled into fraudulent schemes because they appear to be endorsed by a known legal professional.”
Highlighting the broader impact on public trust, he said,
“The legal profession carries an inherent aura of authority and trust. When that trust is exploited, the damage is immense.”
According to him,
“This judgment sends a clear message that impersonation will not be tolerated and that courts will take decisive action to protect the public.”
ALSO READ: Hrithik Roshan vs AI Deepfakes: Delhi High Court Orders to Protect Personality Rights
He concluded,
“If this order prevents even a few people from being defrauded, it has served its true purpose.”
Summing up the principle at stake, Pahwa remarked,
“Reputation in the legal profession is not a marketing asset—it is a public trust. Any attempt to misuse it for fraud strikes at the heart of the justice system, and the law must respond firmly.”
He also expressed appreciation for the timely judicial relief, stating,
“I am grateful to the Delhi High Court for recognising our professional goodwill and reputation and for granting immediate relief.”
In his suit, Pahwa pointed out that he is an advocate with over 32 years of professional experience and alleged that the defendant platforms were “impersonating” him and using his name, identity, image, contact details, and other credentials to lure members of the public into making financial investments.
The Court, after examining the material on record, agreed that a strong prima facie case was made out and passed wide-ranging restraint orders to prevent any further misuse of his identity across digital platforms.
Read More Reports On Personality Rights
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
