Delhi High Court Protects Personality Rights Of 'Pookie Baba' Aniruddhacharya Ji Maharaj

The Delhi High Court has recently granted a temporary injunction restraining the unauthorised use of the persona of spiritual preacher Aniruddhacharya Ji Maharaj (Anil Kumar Tiwari) popularly known as 'Pookie Baba', observing that the threat to his reputation was “real and present.”

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, by an order dated March 30, 2026, passed directions against various unknown defendants while also directing social media platforms Meta, X and Google to take down identified infringing content.

“The apprehension of dent and damage to the image and personality of the plaintiff, prima facie, appears to be real and present,” the Court observed.

The court noted that the preacher, whose discourses have garnered millions of views across digital platforms and earned recognition in the London World Book of Records, has developed a well-known, popular and well-accepted personality.

Moving the Court, Aniruddhacharya asserted rights over his name, identity and distinctive attributes, including the sobriquet “Pookie Baba”, his unique Braj-Avadhi style of discourse and widely recognised catchphrases such as “Koi aapko gaali de toh turant jawab na dijiye”, Koi tumse pyaar kyun karega”, “Mai akele mein nahi milta kisi se bhi

He contended that unauthorised circulation of AI-generated videos, deepfakes and manipulated content falsely depicting him reciting romantic 'shayari' or singing songs he never performed undermined the dignity and credibility associated with his spiritual teachings.

The plaint further stated that his voice, appearance, mannerisms, and style of discourse have become uniquely identifiable attributes, and that misuse of these traits, particularly in meme-style content created for commercial gain, was leading to distortion of his persona and loss of goodwill among followers. Among the instances cited was a reel superimposing the faces of cricket players onto the plaintiff and a devotee during a sermon.

Agreeing with the submissions, the court held that the plaintiff had a “prima facie strong case” and that the balance of convenience was in favour of the plaintiff.

The court further observed, “The list of identified infringing links handed over by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is taken on record and is appended to this order as Annexure-A. The infringing content enlisted in Annexure-A is self-explanatory and appears to be disparaging. Having perused the same, it is clear that the nature of such links do not indicate that they are mere parody and appear to be disparaging and infringing the personality rights of the plaintiff.”

The court added that if an injunction were not granted, “irreparable loss and injury, which may occasion, may not be compensated in monetary terms.”

Accordingly, the court restrained the defendants, their agents, and any persons acting on their behalf from using, reproducing, misappropriating, or exploiting the plaintiff's name, voice, image, likeness, mannerisms, or any other distinctive attributes without authorisation, including through artificial intelligence, deepfake technology, or any other digital manipulation.

Meta, X, and Google were directed to remove, disable access to, and permanently take down the impugned content identified by the plaintiff.

The Court also permitted the preacher to notify additional infringing links, accounts, channels, or content discovered after the filing of the suit to the platforms, which shall thereupon remove or disable access to the same without requiring the plaintiff to institute fresh proceedings.

The matter is listed before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on July 8, 2026 for completion of service and pleadings, and before the Court on September 23, 2026.