Personality rights often described as the right to control the commercial use of one’s name, image, likeness, voice, or other identifiable attributes have emerged as a significant yet underdeveloped area of Indian jurisprudence.
Unlike jurisdictions such as the United States, India does not have a dedicated statute governing personality or publicity rights. Instead, these rights have evolved through a mosaic of constitutional principles, intellectual property laws, and judicial creativity.
Conceptual Foundation: A Right Without a Statute
In India, personality rights are not codified in a single legislative framework. Courts have derived them primarily from Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to privacy. The landmark judgment in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1995) laid the groundwork by recognising that individuals have a right to control the commercial use of their identity.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court’s recognition of privacy as a fundamental right in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India strengthened the conceptual basis for personality rights. Courts have also relied on statutory provisions such as:
- Section 38 of the Copyright Act, 1957 (performer’s rights)
- Trademark law principles such as passing off
- Tort law remedies including misappropriation and unjust enrichment
However, these provisions remain fragmented and inadequate to comprehensively address personality rights.
Judicial Evolution: From Privacy to Publicity
Indian courts have progressively expanded personality rights from a privacy-based doctrine to a broader right of publicity. Early cases focused on protecting individuals from unauthorised publication of personal information. Over time, the focus shifted to preventing commercial exploitation of celebrity personas.
A turning point came with the Delhi High Court’s intervention in celebrity cases, particularly involving prominent public figures. The courts recognised that unauthorised use of a celebrity’s identity could lead to both reputational harm and economic loss.
In recent years, courts have granted John Doe (Ashok Kumar) orders, allowing plaintiffs to restrain unknown defendants from exploiting their persona. Remedies commonly granted include:
- Interim injunctions
- Removal of infringing digital content
- Blocking of URLs and online platforms
This judicial approach reflects a pragmatic attempt to address evolving digital harms in the absence of legislative clarity.
The AI Era: Expanding Judicial Protection
The rapid rise of artificial intelligence, deepfakes, and digital impersonation has accelerated the need for personality rights protection. Courts have increasingly recognised threats such as voice cloning, AI-generated images, and fake endorsements.
Recent cases illustrate this trend:
- Actor Allu Arjun approached the Delhi High Court to restrain unauthorised use of his name, voice, and likeness, particularly in AI-generated content and fake applications.
- The Bombay High Court ordered removal of deepfake content involving Akshay Kumar, highlighting the societal risks posed by AI manipulation.
- Courts have extended protection to several celebrities, including Amitabh Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, directing takedown of infringing digital content.
The surge in litigation reflects how personality rights have transitioned from a niche concern to a mainstream legal issue driven by digital misuse and AI technologies.
Judicial Reasoning: Balancing Competing Rights
A key challenge in personality rights jurisprudence is balancing Article 21 (privacy and dignity) with Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression). Courts have adopted a case-by-case approach, assessing whether the use of a person’s identity constitutes:
- Legitimate expression (e.g., news reporting, satire), or
- Unauthorised commercial exploitation
Importantly, courts have held that celebrities need not always prove actual damage to obtain relief, especially where misuse is evident.
Legislative Vacuum and Emerging Alternatives
Despite robust judicial intervention, India continues to lack a dedicated statute on personality rights. The recently enacted Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 offers partial support by regulating the use of personal data. However, it does not directly address issues such as:
- Commercial misappropriation of likeness
- False endorsements
- AI-generated persona replication
As a result, personality rights remain governed by a patchwork of legal doctrines, leading to uncertainty and inconsistent enforcement.
Conclusion: The Road Ahead
The evolution of personality rights in India exemplifies the judiciary’s proactive role in filling legislative gaps. Courts have crafted a dynamic framework rooted in constitutional values, intellectual property principles, and equitable remedies. However, the increasing complexity of digital exploitation particularly with AI demands a more structured legal regime.
A dedicated statute defining the scope, ownership, transferability, and enforcement of personality rights would bring much-needed clarity. Until then, Indian jurisprudence will continue to rely on judicial innovation, navigating the delicate balance between individual identity and public expression in an increasingly digital world.