Deepfakes have moved from novelty to menace, and nowhere more dangerously than in fake medical endorsements. In Dr Devi Prasad Shetty & Anr. v. Medicine Me & Ors. (CS(COMM) 1053/2024, decided 5 October 2026), the Delhi High Court passed a decree of permanent injunction against Facebook pages and YouTube channels that used AI tools to fabricate videos of a renowned cardiac surgeon endorsing supposed cures for diabetes and hypertension — and confirmed binding takedown directions involving Meta, Google and the Government. The judgment is equally notable for how it got there: with no defendant contesting, the Court decreed the suit on the pleadings, holding that no disputed question of fact warranted a trial.
The deception
The first plaintiff, a cardiac surgeon of national repute and founding chairman of a listed hospital chain, discovered Facebook pages and YouTube channels running videos in which his face and voice — synthesised with AI and deepfake tools — endorsed drugs claimed to cure diabetes and hypertension, and dispensed health advice he had never given. Some videos carried the hospital company’s registered device mark and branded hashtags. The deception was working: a member of the public wrote to the hospital in November 2024 asking whether a video was genuine.
The procedural path to decree
Decree without trial — and its discipline
The Court did not treat the defendants’ absence as an automatic victory. Judgment in such circumstances is permissible only where the plaint raises no disputed question of fact: the pleadings must be verified, supported by affidavit, and the documents reliable. Finding those conditions met — the impugned material itself was on record — the Court held the averments stood admitted and that “no disputed question of fact arises from the plaint which would warrant a trial.”
The substance: personality rights in the AI era
On the merits, the Court anchored itself in the Delhi High Court’s developing personality-rights jurisprudence protecting well-known individuals against misappropriation of name, likeness and voice, and found the harm here doubly serious: beyond the injury to the surgeon’s reputation, members of the public might act on false medical claims — abandoning real treatment for a fabricated cure. The display of the hospital’s registered marks in the videos separately made out infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Permanent injunction
The interim order was made absolute against the posting defendants and the John Doe, restraining the impugned content.
Platform mechanism
For future lookalike content, the plaintiffs may move Meta and Google directly on affidavit; the platforms must evaluate independently, with the court as backstop.
Reserved and dismissed
The well-known-mark declaration was reserved for separate examination; damages and costs were dismissed as not pressed.
For professionals and institutions, the case offers a realistic playbook against deepfake abuse: move fast for an ex parte injunction with platform and government defendants on the array; document public confusion; and seek a decree that includes a standing mechanism for future URLs, because deepfake campaigns respawn faster than fresh suits can be filed. For the public, it is a reminder that a familiar face in a medical video is no longer proof that the person ever said a word of it.
Frequently Asked Questions
What are personality and publicity rights in Indian law?
They are the rights of an individual — typically a well-known one — to control the commercial use of their name, image, likeness and voice. Delhi High Court decisions have protected these rights against misappropriation, and this judgment extends that line squarely to AI-generated deepfakes that attribute to a person statements he never made.
Can a court decree a suit without a trial if defendants stay away?
Yes, within limits. Where defendants fail to file written statements, the plaint’s averments may be deemed admitted, but the court still satisfies itself that the plaint is verified, supported by affidavits and reliable documents, and raises no disputed fact needing evidence. The Court applied that caution here and found a decree could follow on the record.
What relief did the hospital company get for its trademarks?
The Court found infringement of the second plaintiff’s registered marks under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, since the fake videos displayed its marks and hashtags. A separate prayer to declare the marks well-known was reserved, as that calls for a distinct examination under Section 11(6) of the Act.
What can a person do about future deepfakes after a decree like this?
The decree builds in a mechanism: the plaintiffs may approach the platforms with an affidavit identifying later URLs carrying similar content, and the platforms must independently evaluate such requests under their policies, with liberty to return to court if they fail to act. It is a practical template for policing recurring AI misuse.