Author: Siddhant Soni

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Corum: Tushar Rao Gedela, J

Date of order: February 19, 2026 (Ex-parte ad-interim injunction)

Relevant provision/ Statutes: Information Technology Act, 2000, Copyright Act, 1957 

Brief Facts:

Jubin Nautiyal approached the Delhi High Court alleging that his voice, singing style, and signature vocal attributes were being unlawfully exploited by various AI platforms, particularly Jammable, to create synthetic voice clones. He contended that these AI-generated voice models were being used for commercial purposes without his consent, leading to unauthorized monetisation of his identity and artistic persona. The plaintiff further argued that even his name and signature-style identifiers were being misused, creating a false impression of endorsement or association with such content.

He submitted that such actions amounted to a serious violation of his personality rights and right to privacy, which are protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It was argued that the unauthorized cloning and commercial exploitation of his voice not only infringed his fundamental rights but also caused irreparable harm to his reputation, goodwill, and professional career as a playback singer.

Accordingly, the plaintiff sought urgent intervention of the court, requesting injunctions to restrain the defendants from further misuse of his voice and identity through AI technology, along with protection of his rights in the emerging field of artificial intelligence and digital media.

Issues:

.  weather it was unauthorized use of voice through AI

.  was it a violation of personality right

. weather it was case of copyright infringement 

. weather defendant has right to control commercial exploitation

. Need for Regulation of AI-generated Content

Argument:

Arguments by the Plaintiff (Jubin Nautiyal)

1. Violation of Personality / Publicity Rights
   • His voice is a unique personal attribute and part of his identity. 
   • Unauthorized AI cloning amounts to misappropriation of his persona. 
2. Passing Off (Misleading the Public)
   • AI-generated songs in his voice may deceive listeners into believing they are original or authorized. 
   • This harms his goodwill and reputation. 
3. Commercial Exploitation without Consent
   • The defendants are benefiting commercially from his voice without permission. 
   • This results in unjust enrichment. 
4. Irreparable Harm
   • Such misuse can damage:
     • Artistic reputation 
     • Future commercial opportunities 
   • Monetary compensation alone is not sufficient remedy. 
5. Need for Injunction
   • Immediate court intervention is necessary to stop further misuse of AI technology. 

Arguments by the Defendants (Jammable Ltd. & Ors.)

1. No Direct Use of Original Work
   • The AI-generated content does not directly copy any specific copyrighted song. 
   • It is synthetically created output. 
2. Technology Platform Defence
   • They may argue they are merely an intermediary/platform providing tools, not creators of content. 
   • Users generate the content, not the company itself. 
3. Freedom of Expression / Creativity
   • AI-generated music could be seen as a form of creative expression or innovation. 
4. No Intention to Mislead
   • The platform may claim it did not intend to deceive the public or pass off content as original. 
5. Safe Harbour Protection
   • They may seek protection under intermediary liability rules, arguing limited responsibility for user-generated content.

Judgement:

The court ultimately ruled in favour of the singer, granting him complete protection against the unauthorized use of his voice and identity. It held that the defendants could not continue using AI technology to replicate or imitate his voice without his prior consent. Accordingly, the court issued an injunction, restraining the platforms from creating, distributing, or commercially exploiting any AI-generated content that mimicked the singer’s vocal identity.

The judgment made an important contribution to evolving digital law by clearly recognising that AI voice cloning without consent is unlawful, especially when it involves the commercial exploitation of a person’s identity. The court reaffirmed that a celebrity’s voice is not merely a technical feature but an essential part of their personality rights, which are legally protected.

Further, the court observed that allowing such unauthorised use would lead to serious and irreparable harm to the artist’s reputation, goodwill, and future earning potential. It also emphasised that exploiting a public figure’s identity for commercial gain without permission undermines both legal rights and ethical standards in the digital space. Therefore, it concluded that any such unauthorised commercial use of a celebrity’s voice through AI technology is impermissible under law.

Ratio Decidendi:

A celebrity’s voice is an integral part of their personality and identity, and any unauthorized use of AI technology to replicate or imitate that voice without consent amounts to a violation of personality rights and constitutes passing off.

Obiter Dicta:

Observation were mase regarding the need for regulation of AI technology, need for expanding personality right court also noted that AI tools can easily mislead the public, blurring the line between real and artificial content, which can harm both:

• Celebrities 
• General public trust

Final decision:

Jubin Nautiyal won the case as the court granted injunctive relief against the defendant

the court also restrained (prohibited) Jammable Ltd. and others from: 

• Using AI to clone or imitate the singer’s voice 
• Creating, publishing, or distributing such content without consent 

It directed the removal/blocking of AI-generated content that used his voice.