Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa on Becoming the First Lawyer to Have Personality Rights Protected

Reflecting on the court’s intervention, Pahwa told The Indian Express Legal that the reputation of a lawyer is distinct from that of a celebrity; it is not forged through endorsements or advertising, but built over decades through “integrity, courtroom conduct, and trust”.

The Delhi High Court recently passed a significant order protecting your personality and publicity rights, perhaps making you the first legal professional to have got such protection. While we often see such orders in the context of Bollywood celebrities or athletes, how critical is this precedent for legal professionals whose ‘brand’ is built on decades of ethical practice rather than commercial endorsements?

Pahwa: This order is extremely significant because it recognises a reality that has long existed but was legally under-acknowledged for the legal profession. A lawyer’s reputation is not built through movies, endorsements, or advertising—it is built over decades through integrity, courtroom conduct, client trust, and judicial confidence.

Unlike film stars or sportspersons, a lawyer’s “brand” is inseparable from the justice delivery system itself. Impersonation of a lawyer—particularly through misuse of photographs and identity—is not merely a personal violation; it undermines public faith in the legal profession. The Delhi High Court’s order acknowledges that goodwill earned through ethical practice has independent legal value and deserves protection. This recognition is vital not just for me, but for the profession as a whole.

Your suit highlighted that your images were being used to deceive the public and commit financial fraud. In an era of AI and deepfakes, what specific challenges did you face in tracking the scale of this unauthorised use, and what should other high-profile professionals do the moment they spot such activity?

Pahwa: The biggest challenge was the decentralised nature of the misuse. My images were circulating across multiple websites, WhatsApp groups, and digital platforms—often anonymously, through fake entities and across jurisdictions. By the time one instance is detected, several others have already surfaced.

AI-enabled impersonation and deepfakes have made this problem exponentially more dangerous, allowing fraudsters to weaponise credibility within hours. My advice is simple and urgent: act immediately. Preserve evidence, issue platform notices, file complaints with the Cyber Cell, and move court without delay. Time is critical—hesitation only emboldens fraudsters and increases public harm.

That is the kind of threat that is posed to lawyers and other professionals whose photographs are being misused. And nowadays, as you know, in the era of Artificial Intelligence, it enables impersonation, it enables deepfakes, which is a very dangerous problem in society. But I don’t even have a deepfake; my genuine photographs he has picked up from Instagram.

And his DP was in my court dress. So, that again is an act of impersonation, which required immediate action of taking down of the websites and also blocking WhatsApp by the police. Police is also acting but now the Delhi High Court has protected us. Therefore, all these actions will be taken in future.

Delhi High Court found a prima facie case against platforms misusing senior advocate Vikas Pahwa’s identity.

Did you know: Vikas Pahwa appeared in the 2006 hit Bollywood comedy film Khosla Ka Ghosla and played a lawyer!

Based on your experience with this litigation, do you believe the current “notice and takedown” mechanism is sufficient, or do platforms need to implement more proactive “stay-down” filters for verified public figures?

Pahwa: I don’t think it is sufficient because it requires a criminal investigation,  because people are being cheated by using my identity.

The traditional notice-and-takedown framework is no longer sufficient. It is reactive, slow, and largely ineffective against repeat offenders who simply re-upload the same content on different platforms.

For verified public figures—especially professionals whose identity carries authority—platforms must move towards “stay-down” obligations. Once unlawful content is judicially identified, platforms should proactively prevent its re-upload. The technology already exists; what is required now is accountability and legal clarity. Otherwise, platforms risk becoming passive enablers of fraud.

A still from the 2006 movie Khosla Ka Ghosla, where Vikas Pahwa is seen putting on a lawyer’s band.

You noted in your suit that your persona has acquired “independent proprietary value”. How do you balance the necessity of having a public presence for your legal practice with the growing need to gate-keep your personal data and likeness from malicious actors?

Pahwa: Our reputation or our goodwill is based on the hard work of decades, particularly our representation in the courts, the judgments, which are reported, which are followed, our names are used, and our names are reflected in those judgments where we have contributed to the growth of law and also the law as a whole.

A public presence is inevitable in the legal profession—through reported judgments, public discourse, and professional visibility. But public presence does not mean public ownership of one’s identity.

The balance lies in clear legal boundaries. Visibility must not translate into vulnerability. Judicial recognition that a professional persona has independent proprietary value allows lawyers to engage openly in public life while retaining control over misuse. Justice Jyoti Singh’s judgment reinforces that personal data and likeness are not free commodities for exploitation.

Beyond personal reputation, your counsel argued that these pictures were being used to “defraud people”. Do you see this legal victory as a personal win or as a necessary step to protect the general public from falling victim to scams that exploit the perceived authority and trust associated with the legal profession?

Pahwa: This is not a personal victory; it is a public-interest intervention. The real victims are ordinary citizens who are misled into fraudulent schemes because they appear to be endorsed by a known legal professional.

The legal profession carries an inherent aura of authority and trust. When that trust is exploited, the damage is immense. This judgment sends a clear message that impersonation will not be tolerated and that courts will take decisive action to protect the public. If this order prevents even a few people from being defrauded, it has served its true purpose.

Reputation in the legal profession is not a marketing asset—it is a public trust. Any attempt to misuse it for fraud strikes at the heart of the justice system, and the law must respond firmly.

I am grateful to the Delhi High Court for recognising our professional goodwill and reputation and for granting immediate relief.

Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa becomes first lawyer to have personality rights protected.

Vikas Pahwa’s suit argued that he is an advocate with over 32 years of professional experience, and the defendant platforms were “impersonating” him and using his name, identity, image, contact details and other credentials to lure and induce members of the public into financial investments and are indulging in a serious financial fraud.

The court took on record several screenshots indicating the misuse and “restrained from unauthorisedly using, reproducing, publishing, communicating to the public, displaying, hosting, disseminating or exploiting in any manner whatsoever, photographs/images, name, identity and contact details” of Pahwa or “showing any kind of association, affiliation or connection” with him on any platform, including social media platforms, amounting to copyright infringement and passing of its activities as those of the senior lawyer.