It is entirely in the fitness of things and so also absolutely in order that the Delhi High Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Gautam Gambhir vs Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors in CS(COMM) 287/2026 that was pronounced just recently on 25.03.2026 has passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of Gautam Gambhir who is the coach of the Indian men’s national cricket team and a former Indian cricketer. It must be noted that the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Jyoti Singh who authored this progressive, pragmatic, persuasive and pertinent judgment minced absolutely just no words to hold in no uncertain terms that Gambhir is one of the most decorated cricketers of India, and infringing content and merchandise gaining commercial value from his formidable goodwill and reputation without his authorization violates his personality and publicity rights. Therefore, we thus see that the Bench deemed it fit to restrain multiple entities and unidentified individuals from unauthorized use of Gautam Gambhir’s name, image and likeness, particularly through Artificial Intelligence-generated content and line merchandise. After hearing the case, the Bench passed the interim order in favour of Gautam Gambhir protecting his personality rights. Very rightly so!
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Jyoti Singh of Delhi High Court sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 36 that, “This application is filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for grant of ex-parte ad interim injunction.”
As we see, the Bench then states in para 40 that, “At the outset, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, on instructions, submits that Plaintiff does not press the relief claimed in Paragraph 67(v) of the plaint. The statement is taken on record.”
Truth be told, the Bench observes in para 41 that, “Learned counsel appearing for Defendant No. 13/Meta Platforms Inc. on instructions, submits that all the infringing links concerning Meta Platforms Inc. are inaccessible, save and except, document at S. No. 18 of the list handed over in Court, which is a profile URL of an individual and does not match with the subject matter of the present suit. He further submits that in case any intimation is received from the Plaintiff regarding any other infringing URL(s), necessary action will be taken by Meta Platforms Inc. in accordance with law to take down the URL(s). Counsel for Defendant No.15 also submits that some URLs are inactive currently and identifies the ones which are active and echoes that on being informed of the infringing links by the Plaintiff, necessary take down action will be taken as per law.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 42 that, “Case of the Plaintiff as set out in the plaint is that Plaintiff is a globally recognised former Indian International cricketer, World Cup champion, distinguished sports administrator, mentor, philanthropist and public representative and is currently the Head Coach of Indian Men’s National Cricket Team, enjoying immense goodwill and reputation, both in India and internationally. Having made his international debut for India in early 2000s, Plaintiff went on to represent Indian National cricket team across all formats over a prolonged and distinguished career.”
Adding more to it, the Bench enunciates in para 43 that, “It is stated that Plaintiff’s career is particularly distinguished by his match-defining performances in high-pressure international tournaments, most notably the decisive innings in the finals of the 2007 ICC World Twenty20 and the 2011 ICC Cricket World Cup, both of which culminated in India lifting the coveted trophies. Plaintiff has represented the Indian National cricket team in a total of 242 international matches, comprising 58 Test matches, 147 One Day Internationals and 37 Twenty20 Internationals, in addition to domestic and franchise career spanning nearly two decades. Plaintiff was conferred the Arjuna Award in 2008 in recognition of his outstanding sporting achievements and thereafter, the Padma Shri in 2019 by the Government of India, the fourth highest civilian honour of the country. Plaintiff is also the recipient of several international accolades, including being ranked as the No. 1 Test batsman in the ICC Rankings in 2009 and being awarded the ICC Test Player of the Year in the same year. Plaintiff is amongst a rare group of cricketers to have scored centuries in five consecutive Test matches and remains the only Indian batsman to have scored more than 300 runs in four consecutive Test series, which has further cemented his global reputation and distinctiveness.”
Further, the Bench states in para 44 that, “It is stated that in July, 2024 Plaintiff was appointed as Head Coach of Indian Men’s National Cricket Team, a position that reflects the highest degree of trust reposed by cricketing establishment in his integrity, strategic acumen and leadership abilities. Under Plaintiff’s stewardship, Indian team has won the ICC Champions Trophy, 2025 and Asia Cup, 2025. Plaintiff has made significant contributions to public life as an elected representative and has served as a Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha, from 2019 to 2024. Plaintiff is the founder of the Gautam Gambhir Foundation, a charitable organization through which he has undertaken extensive humanitarian social welfare initiatives. Foundation is involved in providing support for education of underprivileged children, healthcare assistance and relief measures during public emergencies as also support for families of martyrs and frontline workers, among other philanthropic activities.”
Most significantly, the Bench encapsulates in para 53 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment postulating precisely that, “Personality rights have been recognised by this Court in several orders passed from time to time. Plaintiff has a right to protect his name, likeness and all other attributes of his personality and no third party has a right to use these attributes without his consent/authorization. In D.M. Entertainment v. Baby Gift House, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4790; Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India and others, 2023 SCC Online Del 6914; and Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3664, this Court has held that the unauthorised use of person’s name, image, or other distinctive attributes for commercial purposes constitutes an infringement of his rights, amounts to dilution of individual’s unique identity and leads to unearned commercial gain by others. It is well settled that where such personality rights are established, the individual is entitled to protection by way of injunction against their unauthorised use or exploitation. In Sunil Gavaskar v. Cricket Tak (CRICKETTAK557) and Ors., CS (COMM) 1329/2025, this Court restrained the Defendants from misusing Petitioner’s name, likeness, image and signature and/or other attributes of his persona, noting that the infringing content would cause irreparable injury to him considering his reputation, goodwill and stature. In the instant case, the infringing content, hosted purely for commercial or personal gains, is continuing to cause harm and damage to Plaintiff’s formidable goodwill and reputation and violates his personality and privacy rights. Unidentified sellers are selling merchandise and other articles on Amazon and Flipkart using Plaintiff’s images, without his consent and/or authorisation, for illegal monetary gains, which amounts to passing off and dilutes the iconic stature of the Plaintiff.”
Equally significant is that the Bench while continuing in the same vein propounds in para 54 directing and holding that, “Plaintiff is one of the most decorated cricketers of this country and as brought forth in the plaint, has represented India in 242 international matches across Tests, ODIs and T20Is and is most remembered for his match winning innings in 2007 ICC World Twenty20 Final and 2011 ICC Cricket World Cup Final, both resulting in India’s victories. After retirement from cricket, Plaintiff has transitioned into a different role of mentorship and coaching and was appointed Head Coach of Indian Men’s National Cricket Team in July, 2024 and under his stewardship, India won the ICC Champions Trophy, 2025, Asia Cup, 2025 and ICC Men’s T20 World Cup, 2026. Plaintiff’s initiative during COVID-19 of providing meals at Re.1/- to thousands in need was commended by this Court in a judgment rendered in Gautam Gambhir Foundation through its Hony. Administrator Pawan Gulati and Others v. State of NCT of Delhi through Drugs Control Department, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 8548. In this backdrop, it becomes necessary to restrain the infringing Defendants by an ex parte ad interim order and accordingly, following directions are issued:-
(a) Till the next date of hearing, Defendants No. 1 to 10 as also their agents, representatives and all persons claiming through them or acting on their behalf are restrained from using and/or in any manner, directly or indirectly, exploiting or misappropriating Plaintiff’s: (i) names Gautam Gambhir, Gauti and GG; (ii) image; (iii) voice; and (iv) likeness and/or any other attribute of his persona, without his authorization or consent, for any commercial and/or personal gain, through the use of technology, including but not limited to Artificial Intelligence, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Deepfakes, AI Chatbots, Face Morphing and/or any other mediums and formats, amounting to violation of Plaintiff’s personality/publicity rights. Said Defendants are also restrained from creating, publishing, uploading, sharing, resharing, disseminating and/or amplifying in any manner, any photographs, audio recordings, video recordings and/or any audio-visual depictions featuring and/or using any attributes of Plaintiff’s persona including through style of speech, face swapping, morphing, superimposing and/or any AI generated or deepfake representation.
(b) Defendant No.11/Amazon shall take down URLs enlisted in Table-1 of Annexure-A to this order and Defendant No. 12/Flipkart shall take down URLs enlisted in Table-2. Defendant No.13 is directed to take down the URL enlisted in Table-3 of Annexure-A and Defendant No. 15/Google shall take down URLs enlisted in Table-4. The needful shall be done by the Defendants within 36 hours from the date of receipt of this order.
(c) Defendants No.11 and 12 shall provide the sellers details in respect of the infringing URLs while Defendants No. 13 and 15 shall provide Basic Subscriber Information and IP log details of Instagram and Google accounts respectively, to the Plaintiff within two weeks from today and also file the same in Court within four weeks in sealed covers or password protected documents.”
It is worth noting that the Bench notes in para 55 that, “Court is informed that some of the infringing URLs mentioned in the plaint and tabulated in Annexure-B attached to this order are inaccessible/inactive and therefore, at this stage, no order is being passed for taking them down. Needless to state if Plaintiff comes across any other infringing URL(s), he may bring the same to the notice of the respective Defendant(s) and on receipt of information, concerned Defendant(s) shall take down the infringing URLs, in accordance with law.”
Finally, the Bench then concludes by aptly directing and holding in para 56 that, “Plaintiff shall comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within a period of two weeks from today.”
Sanjeev Sirohi