The Hindu: Published on 25 September 2025.
Why in News?
The Delhi High Court recently issued orders protecting Bollywood celebrities’ personality rights against unauthorised use of their image, voice, and likeness.
Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan flagged misuse of their images and voices through AI-generated content and merchandise.
Similar protections have been granted earlier to Karan Johar, Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor, Jackie Shroff, and Arijit Singh.
These cases highlight the growing judicial recognition of personality rights in the era of deepfakes and generative AI.
What are Personality Rights?
Definition: Legal rights safeguarding an individual’s name, image, likeness, voice, signature, catchphrases, and persona from unauthorised commercial exploitation.
Legal Basis in India:
Not codified in a single law; drawn from privacy, defamation, publicity rights, and judicial precedents.
Protected under:
Copyright Act, 1957 (Sections 38A & 38B → Performers’ rights).
Trade Marks Act, 1999 (names/signatures registered as trademarks).
Tort of Passing Off (protects goodwill from false endorsements).
Constitutional Basis: Article 21 (Right to privacy & dignity).
Key Judicial Rulings:
R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) – Recognised privacy as part of Article 21, though limited by public records.
Rajinikanth Case (Madras HC, 2015) – Upheld his right against misuse of name and style in films.
Anil Kapoor Case (Delhi HC, 2023) – Restricted misuse of “jhakaas” and likeness; clarified genuine satire and parody are protected.
Jackie Shroff Case (Delhi HC, 2024) – Protected against e-commerce misuse and AI deepfakes.
Arijit Singh Case (Bombay HC, 2024) – Barred AI voice cloning; stressed vulnerability of artists to AI exploitation.
Conflict with Free Speech:
Article 19(1)(a) protects free speech → includes satire, parody, critique, artistic works.
Courts have clarified:
Commercial exploitation without consent = infringement.
Satire, parody, criticism, scholarship, news reporting = protected speech.
Cases:
DM Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2010) – Daler Mehndi dolls misusing likeness = violation, but parody/satire allowed.
Digital Collectibles v. Galactus (2023) – Courts refused to over-expand rights; material in public domain allowed for limited use.
Concerns & Challenges
Overprotection vs. Free Speech: Too much emphasis may lead to censorship and restrict creativity.
Fragmented legal regime: No single statute on personality rights; piecemeal reliance on judicial orders.
AI Deepfakes: Increasing misuse through voice cloning, fake videos, revenge pornography, making enforcement harder.
Impact on Ordinary Citizens: Not just celebrities; deepfakes disproportionately affect women in cases of cyber exploitation.
Enforcement Gaps: Courts can order takedowns/block URLs, but tracking all misuse online is nearly impossible.
Way Forward:
Need for a comprehensive legislative framework in India clearly defining:
Scope of personality rights.
Exceptions (satire, parody, news, criticism).
Liability of digital platforms & AI developers.
Stronger provisions against deepfakes, revenge porn, and AI voice cloning.
Balance between individual dignity (Article 21) and freedom of expression (Article 19).
Conclusion: Courts are increasingly proactive in protecting celebrities from AI misuse and digital exploitation, but without a dedicated law, responses remain ad hoc. A balanced framework is essential to protect both dignity & privacy while safeguarding free speech & creativity.
