Summary: In India, personality rights, protecting an individual’s control over the commercial use of their identity, have primarily evolved through judicial pronouncements. However, the rise of artificial intelligence, including deepfakes and voice cloning, has significantly intensified the threat of identity misappropriation, prompting Indian courts to expand the scope of these rights. In recent times, the Delhi and Bombay High Courts have granted injunctions restraining AI-driven misuse of celebrities’ names, images and likenesses. Yet, despite this judicial recognition, the existing statutory framework remains fragmented, and comprehensive legislative intervention has now become essential to ensure consistent and effective protection of personality rights in the AI age.
In India, specific aspects of identity, including voice, appearance, and signature phrases, are strongly linked to prominent individuals. Illustratively, a distinctive deep voice is often associated with Amitabh Bachchan, a quick flick of sunglasses evokes Rajinikanth, and a dramatic, open-arm pose is readily attributed to Shahrukh Khan. These associations arise from sustained public recognition and carry commercial value, being routinely exploited across advertising, endorsements, and digital media, which also makes it susceptible to misuse.
With the growth of digital platforms and the increasing use of artificial intelligence, unauthorised exploitation of personal identity has expanded beyond conventional imitation to include more sophisticated forms of misappropriation.
This raises a fundamental question: if personality and identity are commercially exploitable, does an enforceable right to control such use exist? Indian courts have answered this in the affirmative by recognising personality rights.
The Evolution of Personality Rights in India
Personality rights pertain to the ability of an individual to control how their identity is used commercially and to prevent others from exploiting it without consent. In India, it is primarily the courts that have driven the recognition and development of these rights.
The groundwork of personality rights is linked to R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632, wherein the Supreme Court affirmed that an individual’s right to control unauthorised publicity concerning aspects of their identity, including family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, childbearing, and education, among other matters, forms part of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Building on this foundation in ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, 2003 (26) PTC 245 (Del), the Delhi High Court recognised the “right of publicity” as a distinct facet of right to privacy, holding that the commercial value of an individual’s identity cannot be appropriated without authorisation and that such a right inheres exclusively in individuals, not in corporations or events. This principle was further fortified in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382, wherein the Delhi High Court held that the right of publicity includes the right to control the commercial use of one’s persona.
Notably, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, in his concurring opinion within K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, observed that the right to privacy encompasses an individual’s ability to exercise control over his/ her own life and image as portrayed to the world, including the right to control commercial use of his/ her identity.He also opined that an individual may be permitted to prevent others from using his image, name and other aspects of his/ her personal life and identity for commercial purposes without his/ her consent.
Accordingly, it is evident that personality rights are categorically recognised by Indian Courts. These rights are anchored in a dual foundation: the constitutional guarantee of human dignity and the protection of the commercial value inherent in an individual’s identity.
Threats to Personality Rights Posed by Artificial Intelligence
It is imperative to note that technological advances have altered not merely the scale but the nature of identity misuse. Tools capable of generating deep-fake videos and cloning voices can now recreate an individual’s appearance and speech with increasing accuracy, often without their consent.
This shift has serious consequences. AI‑generated content can falsely attribute statements, endorsements, or conduct to an individual, exposing them to reputational harm, deception, and financial exploitation. Once disseminated online, such material is difficult to trace, restrain, or effectively counter.
It is in this context that personality rights assume renewed importance. No longer confined to preventing unauthorised commercial association, these rights increasingly function as a safeguard against unauthorised digital replication and manipulation of identity. Indian courts have begun to recognise this reality, extending the protection of personality rights to address these evolving forms of harm.
Judicial intervention against AI‑driven threats to personality rights and the need for a statutory legislative framework to protect personality rights
A series of recent judicial decisions demonstrates a proactive attitude towards protecting personality rights in the digital context. The same is evident from the below:
- Sonakshi Sinha v. Character Technologies Inc. & Ors., CS (Comm) 275/2026:
The Delhi High Court granted an interim order restraining the unauthorised use of the plaintiff’s name, image, voice, and likeness for any commercial or personal gain through any technology, including AI, deepfakes, and AI chatbots, holding such use to be a violation of personality and publicity rights. - Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4110:
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the misuse of the actor’s persona and celebrity status to promote goods and services without authorisation. - Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914:
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the use of the actor’s name, image, and voice to create merchandise or content using AI, machine learning, deepfakes, or face morphing, whether for monetary gain or otherwise. - Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 546:
The Bombay High Court held that the unauthorised use of the plaintiff’s name and personality attributes in the title of a film prima facie violated his personality rights, publicity rights, and right to privacy. - Akkineni Nagarjuna v. WWW.BFXXX.ORG, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6331:
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the use or misappropriation of the plaintiff’s name, image, likeness, and other identifiable attributes through any technology, including AI and deepfakes, for any commercial or personal gain without consent. - Ravi Shankar v. John Doe(s), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6332:
The Delhi High Court restrained infringement of the plaintiff’s name, voice, image, likeness, and unique style of discourse across all formats and mediums, including AI-generated content, deepfake videos, voice-cloned audio, and metaverse environments. - Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5943:
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the use of the plaintiff’s name, image, likeness, and other identifiable attributes through any technology, including AI and deepfakes, citing violation of her personality and moral rights, and that it amounted to passing off. - Suniel V. Shetty v. John Doe(s), I.A. No. 32198 of 2025:
The Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the misappropriation of the plaintiff’s name, voice, image, likeness, distinctive mannerisms, and signature, including through AI-generated content.
Collectively, the judgments reflect the proactive stance adopted by Indian courts in protecting personality rights across the digital domain, particularly in response to threats arising from artificial intelligence. However, despite this judicial intervention, the absence of a dedicated statutory framework remains the most significant challenge faced by courts in India while dealing with personality rights.
The existing statutory protection is highly fragmented. Although Sections 38, 38A and 38B of the Copyright Act, 1957, grant performers certain rights, allowing them to control reproduction of their performances and prevent distortion or mutilation that could harm their reputation, Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, safeguards goodwill against misrepresentation and false endorsement, and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, deal with identity theft and online impersonation, none of these laws offers complete protection for personality rights. As a result, many elements of identity — such as gestures, voice patterns, mannerisms and stylistic expressions — remain outside statutory coverage, a shortcoming that is especially stark considering AI-driven threats.
The Path Forward: Need for a statutory framework to protect personality rights
Indian courts have evidently played a proactive role in shaping the jurisprudence on personality rights. However, continued reliance on the court’s discretion in such matters and the absence of a comprehensive statutory framework inevitably results in uneven protection and legal uncertainty. The relief afforded by courts is often ad hoc and heavily dependent on judicial discretion, leading to inconsistency across cases. Further, in balancing personality rights against the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, courts must proceed with caution. This task is rendered even more complex in the digital context, where injunctive relief loses its effectiveness once infringing content is widely disseminated online. It is therefore imperative that a dedicated statutory framework to address concerns is brought about.