Protecting Personality Rights in India: Legal Evolution, Challenges, and the Road Ahead

Keywords: Personality rights, Artificial Intelligence, Trademark, Privacy, Deepfake

Introduction

In recent years, Indian celebrities and public figures have increasingly approached the courts to safeguard their identities from unauthorized commercial and digital exploitation. The exponential rise of technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), has opened new avenues for misuse, including deepfake videos, AI-generated voice cloning, fake merchandise, impersonation scams, and viral content capable of damaging reputations within hours. These evolving threats have compelled Indian courts to expand the scope of personality rights and intervene proactively to curb the non-consensual use of an individual’s persona.

The Delhi High Court has emerged as a go-to forum in this regard, even in the absence of a dedicated statutory framework. High-profile cases involving Abhishek Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan have underscored the judiciary’s resolve in protecting celebrity identity in the digital ecosystem. Recently, the Bombay High Court granted interim relief to Asha Bhosle against US-based AI firms and e-commerce platforms for unauthorised AI-generated voice cloning. Similarly, the Delhi High Court issued injunctions restraining the use of Abhishek Bachchan’s name and AI-generated images by online entities, citing the risks of commercial misappropriation, fraudulent representation, and the circulation of manipulated or obscene content.

These judicial developments highlight India’s evolving and proactive approach to personality rights. Yet, they also expose the glaring need for a comprehensive legislative framework that ensures clarity, uniformity, and future-ready protection in an AI-driven era. This piece critically examines the evolution of personality rights in India, the existing legal framework, comparative global approaches, contemporary challenges, and the urgent case for dedicated statutory recognition.

Understanding Personality Rights

Personality rights safeguard individuals against the unauthorized commercial exploitation of their identity. These rights extend beyond mere privacy interests and encompass control over one’s name, image, voice, gestures, signature style, dialogue delivery, and distinctive mannerisms. Unlike traditional privacy rights, which are centred on the sanctity of personal life and protection from intrusion, personality rights are primarily concerned with the economic and reputational dimensions of identity in the public sphere.

Indian jurisprudence has gradually evolved to recognise personality rights through two foundational components: the right of publicity, which enables individuals to commercially regulate the use of their persona, and the right to privacy, which protects against unwanted interference in matters of personal life. The seeds of this recognition can be traced to the landmark Supreme Court decision in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, where it was held that individuals possess a legitimate interest in regulating the use of their identity. While the Court clarified that remedies for privacy violations would arise post-publication, such as through defamation claims, it also acknowledged that personal details may warrant protection even if they are already in the public domain.

This doctrine was significantly reinforced two decades later in Rajinikanth v. Producers of Main Hoon Rajnikanth, where the Madras High Court restrained the unauthorized commercial use of the actor’s name, image, and mannerisms. Importantly, the Court clarified that infringement of personality rights does not depend on demonstrating confusion or deception. The mere act of commercial exploitation of a celebrity’s persona without consent constitutes a violation.

The proliferation of digital platforms and generative AI has prompted the judiciary to adapt these principles to contemporary risks. In Anil Kapoor v. Various Entities, the Delhi High Court restrained multiple online platforms from exploiting the actor’s name, image, voice, likeness, and iconic catchphrase “jhakaas.” Justice Prathiba Singh drew a crucial distinction between free speech, which protects parody, satire, and criticism, and unauthorized commercial exploitation, which remains impermissible. AI-manipulated images and morphed content were held to be actionable as they dilute and distort the celebrity’s persona.

A similar approach was adopted in Jackie Shroff v. E-commerce and AI Platforms, where the Delhi High Court observed that unauthorized digital replication of a celebrity’s persona weakens brand equity and violates personality rights. In a related development, the Bombay High Court, ruling in favour of singer Arijit Singh, addressed the issue of AI-based voice cloning and observed that performers are particularly vulnerable to such exploitation. The Court unequivocally held that the singer’s name, voice, image, likeness, persona, and associated traits are protected under both personality and publicity rights.

These judicial developments signify a growing recognition that personality rights serve not only commercial interests but also preserve the dignity and autonomy of individuals. In an era defined by AI-driven replication and instantaneous digital dissemination, the protection of identity is no longer limited to physical likeness but extends to algorithmically generated imitations. Indian courts, through evolving jurisprudence, are gradually shaping a robust framework that addresses the intersection of technology, commerce, and individual dignity.

Legal Framework in India

India does not currently have a standalone statute exclusively dedicated to the protection of personality rights. However, a combination of constitutional provisions, statutory enactments, and common law doctrines collectively offers substantial, albeit fragmented, protection against the unauthorized commercial exploitation of an individual's identity.

The constitutional foundation lies in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court, in the landmark Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, unequivocally reaffirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right. Although the judgment did not explicitly address personality rights, its affirmation of informational and decisional autonomy provides a strong constitutional basis for individuals to assert control over the commercial use of their name, image, voice, and other attributes of identity.

Statutorily, the Copyright Act, 1957, plays a significant role in safeguarding aspects of a celebrity’s persona. Section 57 confers moral rights upon authors, allowing them to object to any distortion, mutilation, or derogatory treatment of their creative works. Section 38 grants performers exclusive rights over the commercial reproduction and communication of their performances. These provisions indirectly shield signature performances, voice modulations, and creative expressions that constitute crucial elements of a personality’s public identity.

Complementing this, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, explicitly recognizes that names may function as trademarks, as provided under Section 2(m). Furthermore, Section 14 prohibits the unauthorized use of the name or likeness of any individual, living or deceased, for commercial purposes. Several celebrities have strategically registered their names, taglines, and signature expressions to prevent misappropriation and reinforce commercial control over their public persona.

In addition to statutory mechanisms, Indian common law offers robust remedies through the tort of passing off. This doctrine enables individuals to restrain others from falsely suggesting association, endorsement, or sponsorship, thereby safeguarding the reputation, economic value, and goodwill attached to their identity. Passing off has frequently been invoked where a personality’s likeness is used to attract consumer attention or enhance marketability without authorization.

Collectively, these constitutional, statutory, and common law protections form the evolving legal foundation of personality rights in India. However, the absence of a dedicated, comprehensive statute results in ambiguity and inconsistent enforcement, particularly in the context of emerging digital technologies and AI-driven exploitation, an issue that has now become pressing and unavoidable.

Comparative Perspective: United States and Germany

The United States has one of the most advanced and commercially focused frameworks for protecting personality rights, known as the “right of publicity.” Recognized through a mix of state statutes and common law, it is treated as an economic right distinct from traditional privacy interests. The landmark case Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gumfirst acknowledged that individuals possess a proprietary commercial interest in their identity.

A distinctive strength of the U.S. model is that, in many states, this right is inheritable and continues posthumously,  enabling celebrity estates to control and monetize the persona even after death. This is especially relevant in the age of AI, deepfakes, and holographic recreations.

Celebrities generally have two main legal remedies. At the federal level, the Lanham Act (1946) allows claims against false endorsement or misleading suggestions of association, although success hinges on proving consumer confusion, which is not always straightforward. More directly, state-level right of publicity laws focus on preventing unauthorized commercial exploitation of personal identity, requiring proof of use, lack of consent, commercial gain, and resulting harm.

On the other hand, Germany follows a unique approach to the right of publicity, as it does not rely on a specific codified statute like the United States. Instead, this right emerges from the broader “general right of personality,” a judge-made legal doctrine derived from Articles 1 and 2 of the German Constitution, which protect human dignity and personal freedom. German courts have consistently held that an individual has the right to control the commercial use of their identity, including their name, image, voice, signature, and even recognisable lookalikes, irrespective of whether they are a celebrity or have ever commercially exploited their persona. This protection is automatic and does not require prior registration.

Interestingly, German law draws a clear line between the right to privacy (non-commercial, deeply personal) and the right of publicity (commercial, marketable identity value). While the former is purely personal, the latter is treated as an economic asset, one that continues even after a person’s death for up to 10 years, allowing legal heirs to commercially enforce the right. However, unlike the United States, Germany does not allow the outright sale of one’s personality rights. Licensing is permitted, but only as temporary authorisation subject to strict contractual limits, ensuring the right remains inherently personal.

Enforcement in Germany is notably robust. Remedies include injunctions, reimbursement of unjust enrichment, and damages. Most importantly, no proof of intent or malice is required, even unintentional commercial misuse triggers liability. Preliminary injunctions can be granted within days, making the German system particularly effective against unauthorised advertising or social media exploitation. Yet, unlike the U.S., punitive damages are not permitted, reflecting Germany’s civil law focus on compensation rather than punishment.

Challenges and the Road Ahead

While Indian courts have progressively acknowledged personality rights as a facet of the right to privacy and dignity under Article 21, enforcement continues to suffer from the absence of a dedicated statutory framework. This legislative vacuum has resulted in doctrinal ambiguity, overlaps with passing off and privacy law, and inconsistent judicial interpretation. The challenge is further intensified by technology-driven exploitation such as deepfakes, AI voice cloning, virtual influencers, and non-consensual digital merchandising which operate at a pace that judicial intervention alone cannot realistically regulate. Equally critical is the need to maintain a delicate balance with Article 19(1)(a), ensuring that personality rights are not wielded as censorship tools against satire, biographical speech, or fan culture. Without clear statutory contours distinguishing commercial exploitation from legitimate expression, enforcement risks overreach or under-protection.

A future Indian legislation on personality rights must therefore be precise, consent-centric, and technologically future-proof. It should begin by adopting a broad definition of personality rights similar to U.S. jurisprudence, protecting a person’s name, image, likeness, voice, signature, gestures, and all commercially recognizable attributes, irrespective of whether the individual has previously monetized their identity. The statute must clearly differentiate commercial exploitation from protected domains such as news reporting, parody, commentary, archival or biographical speech. Importantly, the legislation should also explicitly recognize posthumous personality rights, as seen in U.S. and German law, with a defined term of protection (e.g., 20 or 50 years post-death). Additionally, it must provide rapid injunctive mechanisms, robust remedies for unjust enrichment, and clear obligations on digital platforms and AI developers to prevent misuse. India does not need to merely imitate foreign models but it must urgently craft a modern, rights-based, innovation-compatible statutory framework that secures human identity in the age of algorithms and avatars.

Conclusion

While Indian courts have progressively acknowledged personality rights as an essential facet of personal dignity and autonomy, the current legal framework remains fragmented, reactive, and inadequate to address the rapid and complex threats posed by AI-driven exploitation. The increasing reliance on judicial intervention to curb misuse, particularly against deepfakes, voice cloning, and digital impersonation, highlights the urgent need for legislative clarity and a dedicated statutory framework. Enacting a comprehensive law is no longer a matter of preference but a constitutional necessity.

India is at a decisive juncture. It must move beyond a dispersed dependence on privacy, trademark, copyright, and passing off doctrines and evolve a unified, future-ready statutory regime that is consent-centric, technologically adaptive, and commercially balanced. Such legislation must not only safeguard the economic value of identity but also protect human dignity and digital autonomy, while ensuring adequate room for creativity, satire, journalism, and public discourse. It should also explicitly recognize posthumous personality rights, in line with international best practices followed in jurisdictions such as the United States and Germany.

In conclusion, India must evolve from merely safeguarding celebrity reputation to protecting human identity as both a constitutional right and an economic asset. The creation of a clear, enforceable, and innovation-compatible legal framework for personality rights is imperative to meet the realities of the digital age.