Why in the News?
- In September 2025, the Delhi High Court passed multiple orders to protect the personality rights of Bollywood celebrities such as Aishwarya Rai, Abhishek Bachchan, and Karan Johar.
- These orders restrained the unauthorised use of images, voices, and likenesses in AI-generated content, deepfakes, and commercial merchandise.
- This issue highlights two key points:
- The growing misuse of AI tools to exploit personal identity.
- The absence of a comprehensive legal framework in India to protect personality rights.
Key Highlights
- Meaning of Personality Rights:
- Personality rights protect the identity and persona of an individual, including:
- Name, image, voice, likeness, signature, gestures, and catchphrases.
- Purpose: Prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation, false endorsements, and identity misuse.
- Personality rights protect the identity and persona of an individual, including:
- Constitutional link: Closely connected to Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), ensuring dignity, autonomy, and privacy.
- Key point: Personality rights are about controlling the commercial and personal use of one’s identity, not just preventing defamation.
- Legal Basis in India
- India does not have a single codified law for personality rights. Protection arises from a combination of statutes, judicial precedents, and constitutional provisions:
- Copyright Act, 1957: Sections 38A and 38B: Performers have exclusive and moral rights over their performance and identity in artistic works.
- Trade Marks Act, 1999: Personal traits such as names, signatures, and catchphrases can be registered as trademarks. Passing Off (Section 27) protects goodwill of unregistered marks and prevents misrepresentation.
- India does not have a single codified law for personality rights. Protection arises from a combination of statutes, judicial precedents, and constitutional provisions:
- Constitutional Protection:
- Article 21 (Right to Life & Personal Liberty): Protects dignity, privacy, and autonomy.
- Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech & Expression): Protects creative expression, satire, parody, and criticism.
- Often, these two rights come into conflict, especially in cases of commercial misuse vs artistic expression.
- Judicial Evolution of Personality Rights: Key cases in India illustrate how personality rights have developed over time:
- Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)
- Fact: Publication of private details of a politician in a book.
- Ruling: Courts recognised the right to privacy and autonomy over personal identity but allowed publication of information in public records.
- Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994)
- Significance: Established the foundation of privacy as part of personality rights.
- Rajinikanth Case (2014, Madras HC)
- Fact: Use of Rajinikanth’s name and style in a commercial film without consent.
- Ruling: Court restrained misuse even without proof of deception.
- Significance: Commercial exploitation of identity can be prohibited regardless of confusion or deception.
- Anil Kapoor Case (2023, Delhi HC)
- Fact: Deepfake videos using Anil Kapoor’s image and catchphrase “Jhakas.”
- Ruling: Court barred unauthorised use of image, catchphrase, and AI-generated content.
- Significance: Addresses emerging AI and deepfake threats.
- Jackie Shroff & Arijit Singh Cases (2024)
- Fact: AI cloning of voice and image for commercial purposes.
- Ruling: Courts reinforced that AI-generated misuse violates personality rights.
- Significance: Expands protection to digital and AI-based identity misuse.
- Courts consistently balance commercial misuse against freedom of expression, limiting restrictions to non-commercial, artistic, or critical uses.
- Personality Rights vs Free Speech
- Article 19(1)(a): Guarantees freedom of speech, including satire, parody, art, and criticism.
- Case examples:
- DM Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2010): Caricatures and lampooning do not violate publicity rights.
- Digital Collectibles v. Galactus Funware (2023): Courts refused to broaden celebrity rights in a way that would restrict legitimate public use of likenesses.
- Principle:
- Commercial misuse → prohibited.
- Artistic/critical expression → protected.
- Courts draw a line between exploitation vs free expression, ensuring both identity protection and creative freedom.
- Emerging Concerns in the Digital Era
- Deepfakes and AI Cloning: AI tools create realistic but fake videos, images, and voices, making identity misuse easier.
- Gendered Vulnerabilities: Women are disproportionately targeted through revenge pornography and non-consensual deepfakes.
- Enforcement Gaps: Courts can order takedowns, but monitoring all digital content is impossible.
- Legal Fragmentation: No comprehensive legislation; judicial precedents are fragmented and case-specific.
- Comparative Perspective
- United States: Personality rights are largely protected under the “Right of Publicity”, which gives individuals control over commercial use of their name, image, voice, and likeness. The law is well-codified in many states, and celebrities can seek both civil and criminal remedies for misuse.
- European Union: Identity and personal data protection are safeguarded under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which emphasizes consent-based usage. Individuals have the right to control their personal data, images, and online presence, and can demand deletion of unauthorized content.
| Article 21
1. Meaning and Scope a. Provision: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” b. Applicability: Available to both citizens and non-citizens; enforceable only against the State (Art. 12). c. Interpretation: i. Right to life → More than mere animal existence; includes dignity, culture, tradition, heritage (Sunil Batra case). ii. Personal liberty → Initially interpreted narrowly (A.K. Gopalan), later expanded in Maneka Gandhi to mean fair, just, and reasonable procedure. 2. This right is not absolute and is subject to reasonable restrictions. 3. This right has evolved over time including key aspects like: a. Right to Dignity & Reputation: Eg: Maneka Gandhi Case (Life is more than just animal existence), Subramanian Swamy v. UOI Case (Reputation is part of dignity), etc. b. Right to Privacy & Autonomy: Eg: Puttaswamy Case (Privacy is intrinsic to liberty as it protects choices, identity and data). c. Right to Livelihood & Profession: Olga Tellis Case (Livelihood is a part of life). Article 19 1. Meaning and Scope a. Provision: Guarantees six fundamental freedoms to citizens only. b. Applicability: Not available to non-citizens; enforceable against the State (Art. 12). c. Freedoms under Art. 19(1): i. Freedom of speech and expression ii. Freedom to assemble peacefully without arms iii. Freedom to form associations or unions (or co-operative societies) iv. Freedom to move freely throughout the territory of India v. Freedom to reside and settle in any part of India vi. Freedom to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business 2. These rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions in the interest of a. Sovereignty b. Integrity c. Security d. Public order e. Decency f. Morality g. Contempt of court h. Defamation i. Incitement to offence and j. friendly relations with foreign states. |
Implications
- Strengthening Privacy Protections
- Expands the scope of Article 21 rights.
- Recognises that individuals must control the use of their identity.
- Impact on Entertainment and Business
- Protects brand equity of celebrities.
- Prevents unauthorised merchandising and endorsements.
- Technology and AI Regulation
- Pushes lawmakers to frame rules for AI-generated content.
- Encourages safe innovation without misuse.
- Balance of Rights
- Reinforces that free speech is protected in satire, parody, and academic use.
- Draws a clear line between expression vs exploitation.
- Broader Social Protection
- Not limited to celebrities; it applies to all citizens.
- Offers legal recourse against harassment, impersonation, and online identity theft.
Challenges and Way Forward
| Challenges | Way Forward |
| No comprehensive legislation; protection is case-by-case. | Enact a dedicated Personality Rights Law with clear definitions. |
| AI-based misuse (deepfakes, voice cloning) is difficult to trace. | Create AI-specific regulations and faster takedown protocols. |
| Conflict between Article 21 (privacy) and Article 19(1)(a) (free speech). | Establish clear exceptions for parody, satire, criticism, and scholarship. |
| Women disproportionately targeted through deepfakes. | Frame gender-sensitive digital safety laws and victim support mechanisms. |
| Cross-border misuse on global platforms. | Enhance international cooperation in cyberlaw and digital rights enforcement. |
Conclusion
Personality rights in India are evolving as courts respond to new technological threats like deepfakes, AI cloning, and online impersonation. Celebrities were the first to demand protection, but ordinary citizens face similar risks, especially women and vulnerable groups.
The challenge lies in balancing privacy and free expression while ensuring technological innovation is not stifled. India urgently needs a comprehensive legal framework to safeguard identity rights, regulate AI misuse, and preserve creative freedoms.
| Ensure IAS Mains Question
Q. The rapid advancement of AI and digital technologies has posed new challenges to personality rights in India. Critically examine the current legal framework protecting personality rights, its limitations, and suggest measures to ensure effective protection of individual identity in the digital age. (250 words) |
| Ensure IAS Prelims Question
Q. Which of the following statements regarding Personality Rights in India is/are correct? 1. Personality rights are explicitly codified in a single Indian statute. 2. Protection of personality rights in India arises from judicial precedents, the Copyright Act, Trade Marks Act, and constitutional provisions like Articles 21 and 19(1)(a). 3. Personality rights only apply to celebrities and public figures, not ordinary citizens. Select the correct option from the codes given below: a) 1 and 2 only b) 2 only c) 2 and 3 only d) 1, 2 and 3 Answer: b) 2 only Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect: Personality rights in India are not codified in a single statute. Unlike some countries, India does not have a dedicated law specifically governing personality rights. Instead, these rights have been developed through judicial precedents, statutory provisions like the Copyright Act (Sections 38A and 38B) and Trade Marks Act, and are also derived from constitutional principles such as Articles 21 and 19(1)(a). The absence of a codified law makes the protection case-specific and sometimes inconsistent. Courts have been gradually defining the contours of personality rights, particularly in the context of AI, deepfakes, and digital misuse. Statement 2 is correct: The protection of personality rights in India arises from multiple legal sources. Judicial precedents, such as Rajinikanth (2014) and Anil Kapoor (2023), have expanded protection over name, image, likeness, and voice, even in AI-generated content. Statutory protection is available under the Copyright Act, which grants performers moral and economic rights, and the Trade Marks Act, which protects names, signatures, and catchphrases as trademarks. Additionally, constitutional provisions like Article 21 (privacy and dignity) and Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of expression) shape the legal framework by balancing identity protection and free speech. Statement 3 is incorrect: Personality rights do not apply only to celebrities; they extend to all individuals, including ordinary citizens. While celebrities are often the first to seek legal remedies due to commercial exploitation of their identity, courts have repeatedly emphasised that any person has a right to control the use of their name, image, voice, and likeness. This includes protection against online impersonation, harassment, revenge pornography, or non-consensual AI-generated content. Limiting personality rights to public figures would undermine the fundamental right to privacy, dignity, and autonomy under Article 21. |
|
Also Read |
|
| UPSC Foundation Course | UPSC Daily Current Affairs |
| UPSC Monthly Magazine | CSAT Foundation Course |
| Free MCQs for UPSC Prelims | UPSC Test Series |
| ENSURE IAS NOTES | Our Booklist |
