TLDR: The Delhi High Court has taken a firm stance on personality rights in India, issuing significant rulings to protect celebrities from the unauthorized use of their likeness, voice, and image, particularly in the context of AI-generated content and deepfakes. These judgments underscore the constitutional right to privacy and dignity, pushing for a robust legal framework in the digital age.
NEW DELHI – In a series of landmark rulings, the Delhi High Court has significantly bolstered the protection of personality rights in India, directly addressing the escalating challenge of Artificial Intelligence (AI) misuse against public figures. These judicial interventions, notably highlighted in recent decisions, aim to shield celebrities from the unauthorized commercial exploitation and digital manipulation of their identity, including deepfakes and voice cloning.
The court’s proactive approach comes as AI technologies enable the rapid creation and dissemination of synthetic content, posing unprecedented threats to individual privacy and dignity. A key development saw the Delhi High Court protecting the personality rights of prominent figures like Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan against AI-generated misuse of their images and voices. Similar protections have been extended to other Bollywood personalities, including Anil Kapoor, Jackie Shroff, and Arijit Singh, whose personas, catchphrases, and voices have been targeted for unauthorized use across various digital platforms and AI chatbots.
Understanding Personality Rights in India
Personality rights are defined as legal rights that safeguard an individual’s name, image, likeness, signature, and voice from unauthorized commercial exploitation. In India, these rights are deeply rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Privacy and Dignity. While there isn’t a single codified statute, these rights are anchored in several legal frameworks:
Copyright Act, 1957: Sections 38A and 38B protect performers’ rights.
Trade Marks Act, 1999: Allows celebrities to trademark their names, catchphrases, and signatures.
Common Law Tort of Passing Off: Offers protection against false endorsements or the misuse of goodwill.
Judicial Evolution and Key Cases
The Indian judiciary has progressively evolved the understanding and enforcement of personality rights:
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994): The Supreme Court upheld privacy as part of Article 21, recognizing an individual’s control over the use of their identity.
Rajinikanth case (Madras HC, 2015): Restrained unauthorized film use of the actor’s name and image, even without proof of deception.
Anil Kapoor v. Various Entities (Delhi HC, 2023): Protected the actor’s voice, catchphrases (like ‘jhakaas’), and persona, clarifying exceptions for satire and parody but prohibiting commercial exploitation.
Jackie Shroff case (Delhi HC, 2024): Prohibited misuse of his persona on e-commerce platforms and AI chatbots, emphasizing the dilution of brand equity.
Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures (Bombay HC, 2024): Ruled voice cloning using AI as a violation, highlighting the inherent risks of generative AI.
Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com & Ors. (Delhi HC, 2025): This landmark ruling, delivered by Justice Tejas Karia on September 9, 2025, granted a sweeping ex parte ad interim injunction. The order specifically restrained entities from exploiting Ms. Bachchan’s name, image, likeness, and other personal attributes, with a crucial prohibition against the use of modern technologies like AI, deepfakes, and face morphing. Justice Karia observed, “The unauthorized exploitation of the attributes of an individual’s personality may have two facets – first, violation of their right to protect their personality attributes from being commercially exploited; and second, violation of their right to privacy, which in turn leads to undermining their right to live with dignity.” He further stated, “When the identity of a famous personality is used without their consent or authorization, it may not only lead to commercial detriment to the concerned individual but also impact their right to live with dignity.”
Balancing Personality Rights and Free Speech
While Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, it is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2). Courts strive to balance the dignity of individuals with the public interest in creativity. Permissible uses include lampoon, satire, parody, news reporting, art, and scholarship. However, prohibited uses encompass commercial exploitation, false endorsement, and degrading deepfakes. The DM Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2010) case cautioned against over-expansion of these rights that could stifle free speech.
Challenges in the Digital Era
The digital landscape presents significant challenges:
AI & Deepfakes: Voice cloning, synthetic videos, and impersonation gravely threaten privacy and dignity.
Rapid Proliferation: Content spreads faster than takedowns, making enforcement difficult.
Fragmented Laws: The absence of a single codified statute leads to fragmented protection and inconsistencies, relying heavily on scattered judicial precedents.
Vulnerability of Women: There’s an increasing misuse of images in revenge porn and morphed content.
Censorship Risk: Overly broad interpretations could potentially chill satire, parody, or political critique.
Way Forward
Also Read:
- Artificial Intelligence Set to Propel India’s Retail Sector to $1.9 Trillion by 2030, Deloitte Report Reveals
- Artificial Intelligence Streamlines Legal Processes for Judges and Lawyers
Experts and judicial observations suggest a need for a dedicated Personality Rights & AI Misuse law. This would include mandating platform accountability (intermediary liability for deepfake/impersonation content) and introducing fast-track remedies, such as takedowns within 24–48 hours. Furthermore, increased awareness and digital literacy are crucial to help individuals detect and report misuse, ensuring a balanced legal architecture that protects individual dignity and commercial interests while preserving freedom of expression.
