Personality Rights in India: How Courts Protect Celebrities in the Digital Era

Personality Rights in India Latest News

• The Delhi High Court has recently expanded protection of personality rights for Bollywood stars against unauthorised use of their images, voices, and likeness. 
• The court granted relief to Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan, following complaints of AI-generated misuse.
• Earlier, Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor, and Jackie Shroff had secured such safeguards. 
• This growing series of petitions marks a significant judicial shift in recognising and enforcing personality rights in India’s digital era.

Protection of Personality Rights in India

• Personality rights protect an individual’s name, likeness, image, voice, signature, and other unique traits from unauthorised commercial use. 
• Though not codified under a single statute, they are safeguarded through judicial precedents and common law doctrines of privacy, defamation, and publicity rights. 
• Courts can grant injunctions, damages, or takedown orders to prevent misuse in ads, merchandise, AI-generated content, or digital platforms.

Statutory Safeguards

• Protection is dispersed across intellectual property laws. 
• Under the Copyright Act, 1957, performers enjoy exclusive rights (Section 38A) and moral rights (Section 38B) to control reproduction and object to distortion of their work. 
• The Trade Marks Act, 1999 allows celebrities to register names, signatures, or catchphrases as trademarks — a step taken by actors like Shah Rukh Khan, Priyanka Chopra, Ajay Devgn, and Amitabh Bachchan. 
• Additionally, the common law tort of “passing off” (Section 27) safeguards goodwill from misrepresentation or false endorsement, though it requires proof of reputation before courts grant relief.

Constitutional Backing

• Personality rights are rooted in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees autonomy and privacy. 
• While celebrities may authorise the use of their identity in films, ads, or campaigns, unauthorised use — such as printing images on merchandise or creating AI deepfakes — strips them of control and compromises dignity and agency.

‹ ›

Court Rulings on Personality Rights in India

• The jurisprudence on personality rights in India began with the 1994 Supreme Court judgment in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu. 
  • The Court upheld an individual’s right to control their identity, grounding it in the constitutional right to privacy.
• In 2015, the Madras High Court strengthened the doctrine in a case involving actor Rajinikanth. 
  • It ruled that infringement occurs even without proof of falsity, confusion, or deception if the celebrity is identifiable, thereby protecting him against unauthorised commercial use of his name, image, and style.
• The Delhi High Court has since played a pivotal role in addressing new threats posed by AI. 
  • In 2023, it granted Anil Kapoor broad protection over his persona, barring online misuse of his name, likeness, and catchphrase “jhakaas.” 
  • HC clarified that free speech allows parody and criticism but not commercial exploitation or tarnishment of reputation.
  • In 2024, the same court protected Jackie Shroff’s personality rights against misuse by e-commerce platforms and AI chatbots.
• Later, in 2023, the Bombay High Court upheld Arijit Singh’s rights in a landmark ruling against AI voice cloning. 
  • The court condemned the unauthorised creation of artificial recordings, warning of the dangers generative AI poses to performers’ dignity and control over their identity.

Balancing Personality Rights and Free Expression

• While courts in India have expanded protection of personality rights, they have also emphasised the need to balance them with Article 19(1)(a).
  •  Article 19 guarantees freedom of speech, including criticism, parody, and satire of public figures.
• In DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House (2010), the Delhi High Court granted relief against unauthorised commercial exploitation of singer Daler Mehndi’s likeness.
  • However, it cautioned that parodies, caricatures, and lampooning would not ordinarily violate publicity rights.
• This balance was reaffirmed in Digital Collectibles PTE Ltd. v. Galactus Funware Technology Pvt. Ltd. (2023), involving the unauthorised use of sports stars’ likenesses. 
  • The Court ruled that publicity rights cannot override free expression, especially when material is already in the public domain. 
  • It clarified that legitimate uses of celebrity names or images — such as satire, art, scholarship, news, and music — fall under free speech and do not amount to infringement.

Concerns Around Personality Rights in India

• Experts highlight the urgent need for a comprehensive legislative framework to regulate personality rights, as current enforcement relies heavily on fragmented judicial precedents. 
• Without a clear regulatory regime, responses remain ad hoc and risk blurring the line between artistic freedom and infringement. 
• Clear exceptions must be established to prevent misuse of personality rights as a tool for censorship.
• Experts also stress that personality rights are not exclusive to celebrities. 
• Ordinary citizens, particularly women, face disproportionate harm through deepfakes, impersonation, and revenge pornography. 
• While courts often direct governments to block such harmful content, the sheer volume of violations makes consistent enforcement extremely difficult.

Source: TH | BBC | B&B