The case revolves around Salman Khan’s allegations that the makers of the film have unlawfully used elements associated with his public identity and personality without authorization. The actor has approached the court seeking a stay on the film’s release, claiming that its promotional material and storyline could harm his reputation.

During the hearing before Justice Jyoti Singh, the court was informed that the film has not yet been submitted to the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for certification. Counsel representing the producers clarified that the project is not currently ready for release and assured the court that it would not be sent to the censor board before the next date of hearing.

With the producer’s submission yet to be formally recorded and the certification process still pending, the court chose to defer the matter rather than issue any immediate restrictions on the film.

The development was followed by a public response from producer Amit Jani, who took to social media shortly after the hearing. In his post, Jani said Salman Khan had not obtained any relief from the court and emphasized that no ban had been imposed on the film. He also stated that the matter would now be heard again on July 6.

The producer further remarked that courts function independently of celebrity influence and suggested that stardom would not determine the outcome of the case. He claimed that the film is planned for a large-scale global release and could eventually be screened across thousands of theatres worldwide.

Salman Khan’s petition alleges that the makers have incorporated references that closely resemble his public image. According to the plea, promotional content associated with Kala Hiran features a character bearing similarities to the actor, including a blue bracelet that has long been considered one of Salman’s signature style elements.

The actor has argued that such portrayals amount to a violation of his personality rights and could mislead audiences into associating him with the project. Personality rights generally protect an individual’s name, image, likeness and other identifiable characteristics from unauthorized commercial use.

Another major concern raised in the petition relates to the film’s reported depiction of the 1998 blackbuck hunting case, one of the most closely followed legal matters associated with Salman Khan over the years. The actor has contended that the film allegedly presents certain events inaccurately and could create a misleading narrative around the controversy.

The petition also objects to the reported inclusion of references linked to gangster Lawrence Bishnoi and the widely discussed dispute that has drawn significant media attention in recent years. Salman Khan’s legal team has argued that any fictionalized or inaccurate representation of these issues could adversely affect his public image.

The court’s decision to postpone the hearing means the legal battle remains unresolved for now. However, the producer’s undertaking that the film will not be submitted for certification before the next hearing provides a temporary pause in the release process.

The outcome of the July 6 hearing is expected to be significant, as it could determine whether the film proceeds through the certification process or faces further legal scrutiny over the claims raised by the actor.

The Delhi High Court has issued an interim order protecting the personality and publicity rights of Gautam Gambhir, head coach of the Indian men’s cricket team. The court restrained entities from using his name, image, or likeness for commercial purposes without his consent, citing a sharp rise in AI-generated deepfakes and unauthorised merchandise.

A bench of Justice Jyoti Singh, in an order passed on March 25 and made public on Saturday, observed that Gambhir is among India’s most decorated cricketers. The court noted that unauthorised content and merchandise deriving commercial value from his goodwill and reputation amount to a violation of his personality rights.

Court Recognises Gambhir’s Stature in Indian Cricket

Justice Singh highlighted Gambhir’s distinguished cricketing career, noting that he has represented India in 242 international matches across Tests, ODIs, and T20Is. The court specifically mentioned his match-winning innings in the 2007 ICC World Twenty20 Final and the 2011 ICC Cricket World Cup Final, describing them as defining moments in Indian cricket history.

Following his retirement, the court observed, Gambhir transitioned into mentorship and coaching roles before being appointed head coach of the Indian men’s team in July 2024. “Under his stewardship, India won the ICC Champions Trophy, 2025, Asia Cup, 2025, and ICC Men’s T20 World Cup, 2026,” the order stated, underscoring his continued relevance in the public eye.

Deepfakes and Unauthorised Merchandise Prompt Legal Action

Gambhir had approached the court seeking protection, citing a coordinated campaign of digital impersonation. According to his petition, there has been a sharp rise in fabricated digital content relating to him across platforms such as Instagram, X, YouTube, and Facebook since 2025.

The court was informed that multiple accounts have used AI tools, including face-swapping and voice-cloning technologies, to create realistic videos falsely portraying Gambhir as making statements he never made. One fabricated “resignation announcement” reportedly garnered over 2.9 million views, causing significant reputational concern.

Additionally, the petition stated that e-commerce platforms were facilitating the sale of posters, merchandise, and other products bearing Gambhir’s name and likeness without authorisation, commercially exploiting his persona.

Court Orders Takedown, Restrains Future Use

Justice Singh directed the concerned entities to take down the infringing content within 36 hours. The interim order restrains any person or entity from using Gambhir’s name, image, voice, or other attributes of his personality for commercial purposes without his explicit consent.

Legal experts note that the ruling reinforces the growing recognition of personality rights as a distinct legal protectable interest in India, particularly in the context of emerging AI technologies. The court’s observation on the coordinated nature of the impersonation campaign also highlights the increasing judicial awareness of digital manipulation risks faced by public figures.

Broader Implications for Public Figures

The order comes amid growing concerns over AI-generated deepfakes and unauthorised commercial use of celebrity personas. Legal observers say the judgment sets a precedent for other public figures seeking recourse against digital impersonation and brand misappropriation.

While the interim order provides immediate relief to Gambhir, the matter remains pending further adjudication. The case also underscores the challenges faced by celebrities and public personalities in protecting their digital identity in an era of rapidly advancing generative AI tools.

What’s Next

The court has listed the matter for further hearing at a later date. Meanwhile, social media platforms and e-commerce websites are expected to comply with the takedown directive. The order is being seen as a significant step in balancing free expression with the protection of individual personality rights in the digital age.