On December 1, 2025, two major stories collided in India’s digital and legal landscapes, each shining a harsh light on the growing dangers of artificial intelligence (AI) misuse and the pressing need for robust personality rights. Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty’s approach to the Bombay High Court for protection against unauthorized use of her image and likeness landed just as a wave of AI-driven MMS scandals rocked the country, ensnaring both celebrities and everyday creators in a storm of fake videos, deepfakes, and digital impersonation.
Shilpa Shetty’s legal move is emblematic of a new era, where public figures must fight not only for their reputations but for the very right to control their own image. Represented by lawyer Sana Raees Khan, Shetty seeks urgent safeguards against websites and platforms that use her photos, videos, or even morphed content without permission. According to Bollywood Bubble, Sana Raees Khan made it clear: “No entity can appropriate her name or likeness without consent,” arguing that such misuse is “an outright assault on her dignity and hard-earned reputation.”
Khan’s advocacy comes at a time when technology has made it frighteningly easy to clone a person’s face, voice, or even their mannerisms within seconds. She warned, “Today, a person’s face, name, voice, or even mannerisms can be copied within seconds using AI. For celebrities, this misuse doesn’t just harm their reputation; it also causes huge commercial loss, damages brand associations, and misleads the public.” She further highlighted that India’s current legal protections—spread across the IT Act, Copyright Act, and privacy laws—are piecemeal and reactive, lacking the comprehensive personality rights statutes found in places like the United States.
“Right now, we are relying on piecemeal protections under the IT Act, Copyright Act, and privacy laws, but India does not yet have a comprehensive statute protecting personality or publicity rights. That’s why stronger, clearer laws have become essential. When a public figure’s identity can be cloned by AI in minutes, the law must be equally fast and equally strong to protect them,” Khan emphasized. She called for new legal precedents, demanding that companies and platforms be held to account for commercial exploitation without written consent, and that creators understand even “harmless promotion” without consent is a legal violation. “Creative freedom does not include stealing someone else’s identity,” she concluded.
But the threat isn’t limited to high-profile celebrities. November 2025 marked what cyber security specialists described as one of the most worrying months for AI-generated fake content in India, as reported by OneIndia. Four MMS scandals went viral, each demonstrating how AI, deepfake tools, and digital editing can devastate both public figures and regular social media users. The cases of Bhojpuri actor Kajal Kumari, Bengal creator Sofik SK, Assam influencer Dhunu Juni, and Meghalaya Instagram personality Sweet Zannat dominated online debate, with each facing a unique and harrowing ordeal.
Sofik SK’s 16-minute private video was leaked without consent, allegedly by someone close to him as revenge. The sudden exposure thrust his personal life into public gossip and strained trust within his inner circle. To make matters worse, a second video—later revealed to be a mix of staged material and editing tricks—surfaced, highlighting how creators with rising fame become soft targets for blackmail, misrepresentation, and reputational harm.
Sweet Zannat, an Instagram influencer from Meghalaya, was wrongly identified in a 19-minute 34-second AI-generated deepfake video. The misidentification triggered a torrent of trolling, moral judgment, and religious targeting. Despite issuing a clarification video—amassing over 16 million views in just hours—many users continued to tag her as the woman in the footage, amplifying confusion and distress. The real faces in the viral clip, forensic experts later confirmed, did not match the alleged couple, underscoring the dangers of deepfake technology and snap judgments on social media.
Perhaps most alarming was the case of 15-year-old Bhojpuri actor Kajal Kumari. At the start of November, a supposed MMS of Kumari went viral, trending nationwide within hours. The emotional toll on Kumari and her family was immense, as many initially believed the video to be genuine. Investigators later discovered that the footage was a product of AI deepfake face-mapping, with Kumari’s face digitally pasted onto another body. The source was traced to an international porn-bot network. Kumari described the incident as “digital character assassination” and filed a formal complaint with the cyber cell, seeking legal action.
Assam-based influencer Dhunu Juni faced a similar nightmare when a widely spread AI body-swap video targeted her. Forensic analysis revealed telltale signs of manipulation: mismatched lighting, inconsistent backgrounds, and slightly unnatural facial movements—visible AI distortion during expressions and eye contact. Deeply affected, Juni stated, “AI ने मेरी जिंदगी बर्बाद कर दी,” or “AI has ruined my life.” Her case highlighted that not just big city influencers, but also regional voices with smaller support systems, are vulnerable to synthetic video attacks and organized cyber gangs.
The impact of these scandals extended far beyond the individuals involved. Families, partners, and colleagues found themselves swept into the fallout, facing awkward questions and, at times, public scrutiny. Victims juggled legal cases, therapy, and relentless online abuse. The entertainment and creator industries were shaken, but so too were ordinary internet users, who realized that anyone’s likeness could be weaponized in the digital age.
Experts and policy observers agree: India’s current laws are simply not enough. As Sana Raees Khan pointed out in the context of Shilpa Shetty’s case, “our current laws are reactive, not preventive.” Cyber specialists echoed this sentiment, warning that convincing deepfake clips now require only a few minutes of processing, and the average viewer cannot distinguish synthetic footage from reality—especially when videos spread through private chats and short clips.
Without stricter rules, better reporting systems, and faster takedown protocols, the risk to personal privacy, reputation, and even safety will only increase. Analysts argue for clearer legal definitions of deepfake crimes, robust digital literacy campaigns, and strong support frameworks for victims—including counseling, legal aid, and technical audits. The urgency is clear: “If we don’t act now, November 2025 may be remembered less as a warning and more as an early example of a wider, continuing pattern,” warned one observer in OneIndia’s report.
As India stands at the crossroads of technological progress and personal rights, the cases of Shilpa Shetty and countless creators serve as a wake-up call. The law must evolve as quickly as the technology it seeks to regulate, ensuring that dignity, privacy, and identity are not left behind in the digital rush.
