PERSONALITY RIGHTS IN INDIA: FROM CONSTITUTIONAL PROMISE TO THE AGE OF AI

Author: Shubhi Tiwari, Law Graduate, UPES

Abstract

With the advent of generative AI technology and deepfakes and voice-cloning techniques becoming prevalent, the protection of individual identity has become of utmost importance in today’s world. The paper explores the development of the jurisprudence of the right to one’s personality in India, starting from the constitutional underpinnings of the same in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and then going into the development of the right through judicial precedents. In the absence of statutory legislations, the Indian judiciary has used constitutional protections, intellectual property laws, and tort laws to protect the identity, namely the name, voice, likeness, and personality of the individual, against any commercial exploitation. Through the exploration of the case laws, including K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, and those of the 2026 Bombay High Court, a lacuna in the legislation has been found along with the inadequacy of the current piecemeal statutory framework for dealing with identity manipulation by means of AI technology. The possibility of the right being abused for silencing any satirical or critical comments has been highlighted, and a technological agnostic and principled legislative approach is suggested in order to address the issue.

“Keywords: Personality Rights, Right of Publicity, Right to Privacy, Artificial Intelligence, Deepfakes, Article 21, Intellectual Property, India, DPDP Act, Judicial Legislation”

Introduction

In 2024, a deepfake video showing Sachin Tendulkar promoting a fake gaming application was found out. In 2025, actress Aishwarya Rai took legal action regarding personality rights against major technology companies as they were making profits from deepfakes. In 2026, Sunil Shetty's personality rights were recognized under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and the court instructed the offending content to be removed from AI products. In light of these examples, the identity (which includes the individual's facial features, voice, and persona), can be considered as property in Indian law, which may not be used without permission.

Nonetheless, India does not have legislation that deals specifically with personality rights. At this point, progress has been made on a judicial basis using constitutional, intellectual property, and tort law. Considering how artificial intelligence can imitate an individual's voice within seconds or superimpose his or her face into a video, there is a dire need for an act regulating personality rights.

The problem of personality rights goes further than legality; it has social ramifications too. The idea that one controls one's identity becomes questionable when a computer program can digitally animate the face and make any statement for it to say, endorse any kind of product, or put someone in any sort of scene. In the United States, the right of publicity is provided for in the state legislations and there is a large amount of case law on this matter. Similarly, the UK utilizes a combination of passing-off torts and the Human Rights Act 1998 to provide protection to the identity of individuals. However, in the Indian case, the law remains a common law one because of the lack of legislation. Thus, the discussion needs to take into account both foreign examples as well as a specific approach based on the constitutional and statutory framework in place in India and its culture. This article attempts to do so.

What Are Personality Rights?

The concept of personality rights refers to an individual’s right to control how his/her name, photograph, voice, physical appearance, or any other identifying feature is utilized, particularly for commercial purposes. The following are two aspects of personality rights:

• ·   Right of Privacy: The right to be left alone and safeguarded from any kind of invasion to one’s personal identity.

• ·  Right of Publicity: The right to manage and profit from one’s own personal identity without allowing others to benefit from the individual’s identity in any way.

These aspects have been explained through judicial decisions. In Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, the High Court of Delhi described the right of publicity as “the right to control the commercial exploitation of human identity.” Further developing on this idea, the High Court of Madras, in Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions, stated that if an individual becomes a famous personality, any use of his or her persona would be deemed illegal even without creating any confusion among the general public.

Constitutional Foundations

In the absence of a statutory law, the courts in India have placed personality rights firmly in the Constitution. In the landmark nine-bench decision in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), it was held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21. While writing his separate opinion, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul observed that the personality right to control the exploitation of one's personality for commercial gain is protected under the constitutional right to privacy. Thus, a paradigm shift took place whereby earlier common law rights were made fundamental rights.

Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech) acts as a balancing factor when there is a clash between personality rights and satire/parody/public comment.

The Statutory Patchwork

In the absence of explicit statutory measures, the personality rights in India are protected by a piecemeal collection of legislation, which includes the following:

• ·       Copyright Act, 1957: Sections 38A and 38B ensure attribution rights and the right to prevent distortion of performances, while Section 57 protects moral rights of authors. However, copyright legislation mainly focuses on artistic expression, rather than the individual himself.

• ·       The Trade Marks Act, 1999: Offers relief from passing off when the identity of a celebrity is used in a way that leads to consumer deception. Nonetheless, this requirement precludes many infringements of personality rights, especially those that are not for commercial purposes.

• ·       The Information Technology Act, 2000: Offers protection against identity theft, cybercrime, and impersonation online, but not commercial exploitation of personality rights.

Judicial Milestones: Building the Doctrine Case by Case

Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2023)

The Delhi High Court delivered an important ruling which ensured that the name, personality, voice, image, and catch phrase 'Jhakaas' belonging to Anil Kapoor was protected from any kind of misuse for commercial purposes. The Court broadened the ambit of protection to cover voice, mannerisms, and even catch phrases, because once a person becomes famous he or she is susceptible to misuse which could affect their livelihood and reputation.

Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022)

Delhi High Court issued one of the earliest comprehensive injunctions against the use of AI-generated voice cloning technology in India, restraining the defendants from using the persona of Bachchan through digital media and in products. The court held that the personality of an individual has considerable economic worth and its infringement is actionable under personality rights.

Asha Bhosle v. Mayk Inc. (2025)

The Bombay High Court provided protection to the playback singer Asha Bhosle on the grounds of voice cloning through artificial intelligence, recognizing that the unique vocal technique employed by an artist is a part of their personality which can be protected under law.

Sunil Shetty & Kartik Aaryan Cases (2026)

In the case of Sunil Shetty, the Bombay High Court has unequivocally recognized his personality rights, as per Article 21 of the Constitution, and his moral rights as per the Copyright Act, thereby requiring the deletion of the infringing material generated by AI. The judgment of the High Court in the case of Kartik Aaryan may be said to have marked a turning point in India’s legal jurisprudence concerning fame, identity, and exploitation thereof.

The AI Challenge: When Identity Becomes a Raw Material

Generative AI technology has had a major impact on how the threat environment affecting personality rights can be tackled. Voice generation techniques allow the duplication of a person's voice using a mere few seconds worth of audio clips. Hyperreal deepfake technology makes it possible to superimpose the face of a public figure into scenarios of endorsing a product, making speeches, and even producing sexual images without the consent of the individual. During the state elections in 2025, fake videos showing the politicians making inflammatory statements made rounds before any measures could be taken.

While the IT Amendment Rules of 2026 have brought about some key provisions by specifying SGI and enforcing take-downs, they only apply to duties of intermediary service providers and do not lay out an additional civil liability for breach of personality rights through AI technology.

Critical Concerns: Is the Law Overprotecting Fame?

There have also been some critiques of personality rights discourse. Several orders passed by the High Court on personality rights cases are ex parte in nature, being made purely on the basis of a prima facie case without giving the other side an opportunity to be heard. Injunctions are used not just to prevent the commercial use of the personality right but also the use of memes, parodies, fan sites, and even criticism.

What is required is that the law should distinguish between protecting a person’s personality rights from commercial abuse (which is legitimate) and protecting a public figure from any form of criticism, satire, and news reporting (which is illegitimate). As aptly stated by one commentator, “the law’s function is not to overprotect fame, but to protect fame from abuse.”

The Legislative Gap and the Way Forward

The following would be a suitable legislative regime for India as it is principled, proportional, and technologically neutral:

• Constitutional Codification: Amend relevant laws or include a specific provision to the effect that personality rights are a special class of right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which includes aspects related to privacy as well as publicity.

• DPDP Act Amendment: Consent for processing a person’s biometric, voice, or image data needs to be explicit in order to create artificial media; otherwise, it should attract substantial civil and criminal consequences.

• Specialized Grievance Mechanism: Create a Personality Rights Appellate Cell with the powers to take down offending content and provide interim remedies, with cases being resolved within a period of months, not years.

Conclusion

The growth of personality rights law in India has progressed from privacy concerns raised in Rajagopal (1994) to the prohibitions applicable in the age of AI in 2026, and all through a creative effort by judges. Judicial flexibility has been demonstrated abundantly; there remains, however, an intrinsic limitation of judicial creativity, a limitation being constantly undermined by the exponential growth in AI capabilities beyond what the statutory laws regulating them can cope with.

An indispensable legal infrastructure must be created to cater to the unique challenges posed by personality rights. The creation of this legal infrastructure will serve as the basic structure on which a legitimate and rights-based regime on personality rights could rest. What is crucially important at this point is not if India passes legislation pertaining to personality rights, but when.

It can be stated without any reservations that India finds itself at a decisive point. It faces a choice between risking legislative paralysis and allowing the judiciary to continue its efforts at filling gaps in the legal infrastructure by responding to an increasingly serious infringement of the identity made possible through AI while taking no concrete measures of its own. The latter path promises passage of an enlightened legislation defining personality rights as a special kind of rights, harmonizing individual dignity with the public interest in freedom of expression, and providing regulatory agencies with appropriate means to deal with any harm that new technology may cause. The precedents of other democratic countries like California show that it is within the realm of possibilities to act decisively where legislative power meets with political will. And in India, where both democratic traditions and a capable judiciary exist, such legislation becomes necessary.

References

Cases

Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., CS(COMM) 652/2023 (Delhi High Court, 20 September 2023).

Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors., CS(COMM) 819/2022 (Delhi High Court, 25 November 2022).

Asha Bhosle v. Mayk Inc. & Ors., (Bombay High Court, 2025).

K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.

R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632.

Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions, 2015 (62) PTC 351 (Mad).

Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del).

Statutes and Legislation

The Copyright Act, 1957 (India).

The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (India).

The Information Technology Act, 2000 (India).

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (India).

Books and Articles

J. Thomas McCarthy, The Rights of Publicity and Privacy (2nd edn, Thomson Reuters 2024).

Pravin Anand and Akash Sattar, ‘Personality Rights in India: From Privacy to Publicity’ (2021) 16 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 812.

Sonia Katyal, ‘Publicity’s Secret’ (2004) 71 Cornell Law Review 185.

Raman Mittal, ‘Right of Publicity in India: Need for Statutory Recognition’ (2019) 24 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 107.

Note - The information contained in this blog is for general informational purposes only. We endeavour to keep all content accurate, updated, and free from any form of misinformation or objectionable material. However, we shall not be responsible for any claims arising out of copyright infringement, plagiarism, or related issues; such responsibility lies solely with the respective authors. If you find any misinformation or objectionable content on this website, please report it to us at: editors.ilw@gmail.com