“Koi aapko pyaar kyun karega.”
Come hear from the Baba, who said this line and then eventually got loved and protected by the Delhi High Court, for heaven’s sake.
The Delhi High Court has provided relevant interim relief to Aniruddhacharya, the spiritual leader better known as “Pookie Baba”, who is a just like case study of how the intersection between technology, freedom of speech, and the right amount of brainrot can be litigated, governing the protection of personality rights in an era of memes and artificial intelligence.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief To Pookie Baba In Personality Rights Case
The genesis of the case was due to a lawsuit filed by Aniruddhacharya claiming that his identity has been widely abused on various social media platforms. As per the petition, a number of unidentified third party individuals created or distributed content using his name, voice, likeness and/or personality without his permission. This content includes memes, edited videos and increasingly, AI generated deep fake videos.
Aniruddhacharya contended that these types of usages were not simply parody. These uses reflected an intentional effort to profit from Aniruddhacharya’s pedigree, including several occasions where video edits appear to show him endorsing products, reciting romantic ‘shayari’ or singing songs that he has never performed.
There’s a new mogger in town, one who proceeds Pookie Baba, and its AI!
He submitted that this conduct not only negatively impacted his image as a spiritual leader, but it also had the potential to mislead his constituents.
Delhi High Court Pookie Baba Case: Why The Court Said The Content Was Not ‘Mere Parody’
The Honorable Justice Tushar Rao Gedela stated that the seriousness of the allegations warranted the request for interim relief because there was a real and present concern that Aniruddhacharya was likely to sustain irreparable harm from the alleged misuse of his identity, which established a strong prima facie case in favor of him.
The Honorable Justice also indicated that there was no credible basis for the defense position that the forms of content constituted protected parody.
The court concluded that what was to be considered ‘parody’ and what was plainly defamatory and/or an infringement upon the preacher’s personality rights. This is important because it creates a precedent for the way that ‘meme culture’ is to be analyzed under the law.
The court established that Aniruddhacharya has a significant presence in society since his discourses are viewed by millions of people online and have global recognition such as in the London World Book of Records. WOAH, what?
Therefore, due to wide visibility, the court found that Aniruddhacharya’s identity would be one that would be exposed to abuse and distortion.
Personality Rights In India: How Aniruddhacharya’s Voice, Style And Identity Came Under Protection
Service Providers may also find expanded definitions of personality rights based upon the rulings. The Court has outlined personality rights considerably broader than the conventional characteristic identifiers (e.g. name, likeness). For example, the Court also provides protection of:
• mode of speaking/way of communicating
• style of motion
• catch phrases/linguistic identity
In the instance of Aniruddhacharya, there were specific references to his unique method of communicating in Braj Avadhi, as well as examples of other unique phrases that are well known including the following: “Koi aapko gaali de toh turant jawab na dijiye” and “Koi tumse pyaar kyun karega.”
EPIC is an understatement.
Meta, X And Google Directed To Remove Deepfake And Meme Content In Court Order
According to the court, because these are legal attributes entitled to certain protections, this ruling will greatly extend the definitions of identity in a digital context and how personality in many instances is created and consumed through similar, recognisable characteristics.
Also, as a ruling related to applicable directions to Technology service providers as to how they must act, the ruling directed that the major digital service providers, such as Meta, X and Google, must remove, or ‘disable’ access.
Plus, it also ordered that:
• All named defendants or related persons shall not utilize or exploit the Petitioner’s Persona on any basis whatsoever
• This prohibition applies to AI generated data or content, as well as deep fake content
• All platforms shall process other complaints without requiring additional legal proceedings to do so.
This last point is important because it moves part of the enforcement responsibility from the named defendants to the platforms themselves, thus allowing for faster responses to violations when they occur.
The Economics of Digital Identity
The core of this case is the concept of “free riding” on good will. The Petitioner asserts that unauthorised uses of his persona give third parties the ability to make a commercial gain from using his image and/or likeness, by way of views, engagement, monetisation, without prior consent or compensation to the petitioner.
The court appears to have agreed with the petitioner and indicated in the ruling that the types of activities described above are likely to make it more difficult for the public’s perception of the Petitioner to be associated with his identity, thereby diminishing the economic value of that association. The court noted that these activities could potentially result in “irreparable loss and injury” from which no amount of money would be capable of compensating the Petitioner.
A Precedent for the AI Era
The timing of this ruling is well, super duper impressive, as deep fake technology is becoming more readily available and more sophisticated. By expressly including all AI generated manipulations in its injunction, the court is filling a large gap in the law.
This ruling is part of the trend of courts no longer considering impersonations digitally to be a fringe matter, but rather to have legitimate consequences, just like impersonations in “the real world”.
The case is currently set to return to a Judicial Registrar for further proceedings on July 8, 2026, and then for a subsequent court hearing on September 23, 2026.