Hyderabad Court Upholds Chiranjeevi’s Personality Rights

In doing so, the court held that if the actor’s reputation was damaged due to unsolicited associations, it could not be compensated monetarily.

The court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Hyderabad), S. Sadidhar Reddy, observed: “The claim of the plaintiff regarding his film career and his fame cannot be disputed. He is one of the most recognisable faces in the Telugu Film Industry as well as the Southern Film Industry. He is also well-known across India as a Film Star.”

The trial court referred to various judgments of the Delhi High Court on personality rights, including those involving actors Jackie Shroff, Anil Kapoor, and Abhishek Bachchan, as well as rulings of the Madras High Court in actor Rajinikanth’s case.

The court further said: “Because of his fame, the stage name of the plaintiff as well as various titles associated with him such as MEGA STAR, CHIRANJEEVI, BOSS, ANNAYYA, CHIRU, and MEGA STAR CHIRU, and his voice and image and the other attributes that can be used to identify him are part of his personality as a film actor and artist. It is his USP and is well recognised in the general public.”

The court noted that any product, image, video, or meme containing Chiranjeevi’s face or titles would be instantly associated with him. Hence, any negative portrayal or association without his consent could harm his reputation, even if he had not permitted such use for commercial or propagandist purposes.

The plaintiff’s counsel argued that several defendants were using Chiranjeevi’s images and stills from his films and titles such as “Mega Star”and “Gang Leader” on merchandise including T-shirts, wall posters, and other products — sold through online and offline platforms — without authorization.

It was further submitted that the actor’s image had been morphed using Artificial Intelligence (AI)** to create photographs, videos, and memes, causing serious social and economic harm. The court observed that such AI-generated images were used not only for commercial purposes but could also be misused for spreading political, anti-national, or pornographic content.

The court noted: “If such use is made, the damage caused would be irreparable.”

Accordingly, the court held that Chiranjeevi had made out a prima facie case and was entitled to an ad-interim injunction. Considering the large number of defendants and the rapid spread of such content on social media, the court dispensed with the issuance of notice to defendants Nos. 1–33 and 36 to prevent the petition from becoming infructuous.

However, the court clarified that due to Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, no ad-interim order could be passed against the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Telecommunications (Government of India), who are listed as defendants 34 and 35, without serving prior notice.

Issuing notices to all defendants, the court restrained defendants Nos. 1–33 and 36 from infringing upon the actor’s personality and publicity rights— by using, exploiting, or misappropriating his name, image, voice, or any attribute of his personality, directly or indirectly.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on October 27.