How Did Kumar Sanu Safeguard His Rights?

Synopsis
Key Takeaways
- Kumar Sanu successfully safeguarded his personality rights.
- The Delhi High Court ruled in his favor, setting a legal precedent.
- His case highlights the importance of protecting artists' rights.
- Advocate Sana Raees Khan played a crucial role in the legal victory.
- This ruling protects against unauthorized exploitation in the digital realm.
Mumbai, Oct 19 (NationPress) Playback singer Kumar Sanu is in a celebratory mood following his recent success in protecting his personality rights after a challenging legal battle.
This past Sunday, the artist shared a moment on his Instagram featuring his legal counsel, advocate Sana Raees Khan. In the snapshot, he sported a printed white t-shirt displaying the phrase, “Follow your own path”.
In a heartfelt caption, he conveyed his appreciation for his lawyer's exceptional arguments that secured this legal triumph.
He expressed, “I am incredibly thankful to my advocate, Sana Raees Khan, for her strong and masterful arguments that led to this important courtroom victory. My sincere gratitude goes to the Hon’ble Delhi High Court for acknowledging and defending my Personality Rights.”
He elaborated, “This groundbreaking ruling is not merely a personal achievement, but also sets a vital precedent for protecting every artist’s identity, voice, and creative freedom. #Gratitude #GroundbreakingRuling #PersonalityRights #ArtistsRights #LegalVictory”.
In October 2025, Kumar Sanu lodged a petition with the Delhi High Court seeking to safeguard his “personality and publicity rights,” encompassing his name, voice, vocal style and technique, mannerisms, images, caricatures, likeness, and signature.
The lawsuit claimed unauthorized commercial exploitation by third parties of these characteristics (including through GIFs, audio/video recordings, AI-generated voice and face alterations, merchandise) that generate online revenue and threaten to dilute his persona.
As a result, the Delhi High Court granted interim protection: the Court verbally stated an interim injunction would preserve his rights and mandated the removal of objectionable online content. According to reports, the Court instructed digital platforms, AI developers, and intermediaries to eliminate unauthorized content mimicking his voice, likeness, and persona, and ordered the preservation of associated data from specified platforms and e-commerce sites.