The Delhi High Court directed Google to implement an automated mechanism to remove misleading, fake news and deepfake content related to Jagadish Vasudev, also known as Sadhguru, created by rogue websites to run scams and gain financially. After hearing both sides, the court ordered the complainant and the defendant (Google) to meet mutually so that the aggrieved Sadhguru, or his representative, can identify content violating Google’s own advertisement policies, which then needs to be removed using technology, without requiring Sadhguru to approach the High Court every time his personality rights are violated.
The court made these observations following a directive in May 2025 from an ongoing case in the same court, which had ordered ‘Dynamic+’ injunctions against the miscreants, including future unknown parties, who violated the personality rights of the spiritual speaker. The complainant alleged that certain rogue websites used advanced technology, including generative AI tools, to manipulate Sadhguru’s voice, speeches, and interviews, creating deepfakes for commercial gain and online financial scams.
The court directed the Judicial Joint Registrar to handle the matter on January 13, 2026, to complete the exchange of legal filings and ensure all parties are properly notified. The case will return to the court on February 25, 2026, for a case management hearing, where the judge will review the case, set timelines, and prepare it for trial to save the court’s time.
According to Justice Saurabh Banerjee, as cited in the court order, personality rights include the distinct voice, name, signature, image, likeness, vocal style, articulation, and distinctive attire and appearance of an individual. Referring to the privacy-invading violations of personality rights, Justice Banerjee noted that if these are not stopped, “the wrong messages will spread like wildfire.”
Following these arguments, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora of the Delhi High Court asked for the automated removal of personality rights-infringing content based on Rule 4(4) of The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
The above-mentioned rule refers to the obligation of social media platforms to implement technology-based automated tools to proactively detect and block content depicting rape, child sexual abuse, or any identical material previously removed under Rule 3(1)(d), and to display a notice to users attempting to access such content.
Rule 3(1)(d) refers to orders either from the court or the government to online platforms regarding illegal content. If the platforms are notified, they must remove the content to protect India’s sovereignty, security, public order, and other legal proceedings.
There is no consolidated policy framework to deal with fake ads on Google Ads. Since there isn’t a solid framework regarding personality rights and deepfakes, the misrepresentation policy is the closest policy that can be referenced.
According to Google’s ad policies, the misrepresentation policy states that false, misleading, or incomplete information that deceives users about a product, service, or organization may include hiding or distorting important details such as pricing, availability, or identity, and making unrealistic or false claims to gain users’ trust, money, or personal information.
Sadhguru’s instance is neither the first nor the only case of personality rights violations, especially in the online advertising space. MediaNama has been tracking such malicious advertisements on Google News. Rogue advertisers targeted several celebrities, including singer Shreya Ghoshal, Manoj Bajpayee, Virat Kohli, and public speaker Zakir Khan.
The most common repeating factor across all these fake and misleading advertisements is the visual and URL spoofed or cloned version of the Indian daily Indian Express. In June 2025, MediaNama interviewed singer Shreya Ghoshal addressing the “celeb bait” ads run on X (formerly Twitter) using the spoofed URLs of The Indian Express.
“How is this allowed on a platform that is so important today? Why does it not moderate these posts? Why does it lack a team or technology to prevent this?” she asked while demanding more accountability and responsibilty from the social media platforms like X.
While these fake news and deepfake-related content present legitimate claims for removal, the spirituality propagator has also tried to stifle voices critical of him in the media and online free speech, such as YouTubers. Earlier, Sadhguru approached the Delhi High Court against the YouTube video essay titled ‘Sadhguru EXPOSED: What’s Happening in Jaggi Vasudev’s Ashram?’ by YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh, and the court ordered the video removed from this channel as well as other social media platforms. At the time of writing this report, the video was no longer available on Singh’s YouTube channel.
Citing damage to him and the Isha Foundation’s reputation, Sadhguru-led Isha Foundation filed a defamation lawsuit against Tamil news outlet Nakkheeran. The Foundation seeks Rs. 3 crore in damages and the removal of YouTube videos in which Nakkheeran discussed allegations of child mistreatment and abuse against the foundation.
