Aishwarya Rai Bachchan has approached the Delhi High Court to safeguard her personality rights, raising concerns over the unauthorised use of her name, photographs, and public persona across various digital platforms and commercial products.

The court, presided over by Justice Tejas Karia, heard the matter and signalled its intent to issue injunctions to curb such misuse. The case has been officially scheduled for further proceedings on January 15, 2026.

Representing Rai, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi stated the rampant exploitation of her identity for both commercial gain and inappropriate content. He argued that numerous websites falsely presented themselves as her official platforms, misleading the public and infringing on her publicity rights.

Sethi presented examples of merchandise ranging from mugs and T-shirts to drinkware, bearing her image and name without any legal authorisation.

In a particularly troubling revelation, Sethi highlighted a company named Aishwarya Nation Wealth that had falsely listed Rai as its Chairperson on official documents, despite having no legitimate affiliation with her. He described this act as fraudulent and clarified that his client had no awareness of or involvement with such entities.

The misuse extended into digital manipulation, with Sethi informing the court that obscene, morphed, and AI-generated images of Rai had been widely circulated online. He condemned this as a gross violation of her dignity, stating that her likeness was being exploited for sexually explicit purposes, which he described as deeply disturbing and unacceptable.

Appearing for Google, advocate Mamta Rani addressed the procedural aspect of content removal, noting that specific URLs would need to be submitted for takedown. Justice Karia remarked that while a unified order would be ideal, individual injunctions might be necessary depending on the scope of the violations.

The Court observed that the plaintiff could provide specific URLs for takedown or approach the Blocking and Screening Instructions (BSI) process. It further stated that since the reliefs sought were broad, it would pass orders against each defendant individually. If a common order were possible, the court would issue it; otherwise, injunctions would be granted separately.