I. ABSTRACT
The emergence of generative artificial intelligence has transformed the unauthorized exploitation of an individual’s name, voice, image, and likeness from an occasional legal wrong into a widespread and easily replicable concern. In response to this growing challenge, Indian High Courts have increasingly relied on ex parte injunctions to protect the personality rights of public figures. Beginning with Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022)[1]Similar protection has subsequently been extended to Anil Kapoor, Jackie Shroff, Arijit Singh, and, most recently, to Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan against AI-generated deepfakes in 2025. This paper examines the evolution of personality rights in India, tracing their foundations in the tort of passing off and the constitutional right to privacy recognized in Puttaswamy. It further compares India’s largely case-driven framework with the statutorily recognized Right of Publicity in the United States and the transparency obligations concerning deepfakes under the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act. The paper contends that dependence on common law remedies and interim judicial relief is inherently inadequate to address harms arising from automated technologies capable of limitless reproduction. In conclusion, it proposes the broad framework for a sui generis legislative regime governing personality rights in India.
II. KEYWORDS
Personality Rights; Right of Publicity; Artificial Intelligence; Deepfakes; Passing Off; Statutory Reform.
- INTRODUCTION
A person’s name, voice, image, and other identifying attributes represent a form of intangible interest that has long resisted clear legal classification. These interests do not comfortably fit within copyright law, as they are not based upon an individually authored work. Likewise, they fall outside the traditional scope of trademark protection because their misuse may occur independently of any trade in goods or services. Nor can they be confined solely to privacy law, since unauthorized appropriation may result not only in injury to personal dignity but also in measurable economic loss. Once an individual acquires public recognition, these attributes often acquire independent commercial significance and become valuable assets capable of monetization through endorsements, merchandising, and other forms of exploitation.
The emergence of generative artificial intelligence has amplified these concerns by making such exploitation remarkably simple and inexpensive. Tasks that previously depended upon skilled impersonators, voice artists, or illustrators working over extended periods can now be performed with minimal effort through AI tools using only limited samples and ordinary computing resources. As a consequence, the resulting injury extends far beyond isolated instances of deception. Fake endorsements, fabricated content, and other forms of misuse can be replicated indefinitely by countless individuals at negligible cost.
Although the judiciary in India has attempted to address these challenges through innovative remedies, legislative intervention has remained absent. Since Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022),[2] Indian High Courts have repeatedly issued “John Doe” or omnibus injunctions, granting protection not merely against identified defendants but also against unknown future wrongdoers. Similar relief has subsequently been extended to Anil Kapoor, Jackie Shroff, Arijit Singh, cardiac surgeon Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty, and, in September 2025, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan. A common characteristic of these decisions is their interim and ex parte nature, with relief generally being granted shortly after the institution of proceedings.
In addition, courts have routinely directed the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to exercise their regulatory powers by requiring internet and telecommunications intermediaries to disable access to specific URLs, videos, or telephone numbers associated with fraudulent activity. What initially emerged as a case-specific response to isolated instances of misuse has, within a relatively short period, evolved into the judiciary’s standard approach to addressing harms facilitated by artificial intelligence.
The rapid succession of these decisions—covering sectors as diverse as cinema, music, and medicine—indicates that the issue is not merely a collection of isolated disputes. Rather, it highlights the absence of a comprehensive statutory framework governing personality rights, a deficiency that the Law Commission of India had identified more than a decade earlier. Although the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 potentially encompasses facial and vocal biometrics within the category of personal data, neither the Supreme Court has delivered an authoritative pronouncement on personality rights nor has Parliament enacted dedicated legislation in this area.
Against this backdrop, the continuing legislative inaction gives rise to an important research inquiry. Instead of treating such silence as a reason to disregard the issue, this paper examines why a doctrine that has consistently received recognition from High Courts over the last decade has not yet been codified and explores the possible contours of a legislative framework capable of addressing this persistent gap.
- RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This paper employs a combination of doctrinal and comparative research methodologies. No empirical techniques, such as surveys, interviews, or field-based data collection, have been utilized. Instead, the analysis relies primarily upon legal sources, including statutes, constitutional provisions, judicial decisions, and relevant academic literature discussing these materials. The doctrinal component of the study follows the evolution of personality rights in India through a chronological examination of judicial developments, beginning with Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers[3] and extending to the various AI-related injunctions delivered between 2022 and 2025.
In addition, the paper undertakes a comparative assessment of two distinct regulatory approaches. The first is the United States’ statutory right-of-publicity framework, which grants claimants explicit legislative remedies. The second is the model embodied in the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act, which emphasizes regulatory obligations and transparency requirements directed at AI systems rather than focusing exclusively on individual causes of action.
V. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A. Constitutional Foundations
The constitutional basis of personality rights in India can be traced to R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu,[4] wherein the Supreme Court recognized the right to privacy as an integral component of Article 21 and affirmed that individuals possess the right to prevent the unauthorized publication of matters relating to their private lives. Although the dispute itself did not directly concern personality rights, it provided the normative foundation upon which later developments in this area were built.
This constitutional understanding received greater clarity and authority in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India.[5] In that landmark decision, a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court unequivocally declared privacy to be a fundamental right emanating from the guarantees of life and personal liberty. The judgment supplied a broader constitutional framework that subsequently influenced the recognition of personality rights.
B. Foundational Personality Rights Jurisprudence
In India, personality rights have largely evolved through judicial interpretation rather than legislative intervention.
An early acknowledgment of publicity rights emerged in ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises.[6] While dealing with the commercial exploitation of identity, the Delhi High Court observed that celebrities possess a legally protectable interest in the economic value associated with their persona.
The jurisprudence advanced further in D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House,[7] where the Delhi High Court held that the unauthorized commercial appropriation of singer Daler Mehndi’s identity amounted to misappropriation. The Court also emphasized that a celebrity’s identity possesses independent commercial worth capable of legal protection.
Subsequently, in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers,[8] The Delhi High Court restrained the unauthorized use of photographs of Amitabh Bachchan and Jaya Bachchan in advertising campaigns. The Court underscored that endorsement rights constitute valuable commercial interests deserving judicial protection.
Likewise, in Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions,[9] The Madras High Court intervened to prevent the unauthorized exploitation of actor Rajinikanth’s persona. The decision acknowledged that a celebrity’s identity carries substantial economic significance and merits legal recognition.
Collectively, these decisions laid the groundwork for the doctrine of personality rights in India, with the judiciary assuming the primary role in its development in the absence of specific legislation.
C. Personality Rights Litigation in the AI Era
The emergence of artificial intelligence and digital technologies has considerably transformed the nature of personality rights disputes and the judicial response to them.
In Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors.,[10] the Delhi High Court granted an injunction restraining the unauthorized commercial use of Amitabh Bachchan’s persona. The case reflected judicial recognition of the enhanced risks posed by digital technologies and online exploitation.
A more expansive approach was adopted in Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors.,[11] where the Delhi High Court extended protection to the plaintiff’s name, image, voice, signature, and distinctive mannerisms. The Court expressly acknowledged the threat posed by artificial intelligence and other forms of digital manipulation and issued wide-ranging directions to safeguard the plaintiff’s personality rights.
Similarly, the Delhi High Court in Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf @ Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors.[12] reiterated that personality rights possess commercial value and require protection against unauthorized exploitation. The principles formulated in D.M. Entertainment, Anil Kapoor, and Jackie Shroff have since served as important precedents in subsequent litigation.
More recently, in Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP,[13] The Bombay High Court recognized the singer’s entitlement to protection over his name, voice, and personality attributes. The significance of this decision lies in demonstrating that personality rights jurisprudence is no longer confined to the film industry or to the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court, but is expanding both geographically and across different professional domains.
D. Research Gap
Despite repeated judicial affirmation of personality rights, India still lacks a dedicated statutory framework governing their protection. Existing remedies remain largely dependent upon judicial innovation and the grant of interim relief, rather than upon a comprehensive legislative scheme. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has yet to address the issue of personality rights in the context of artificial intelligence.
The importance of this lacuna has become increasingly pronounced with the development of technologies such as deepfakes and voice-cloning systems. These technologies generate concerns that extend beyond conventional commercial misappropriation and raise broader questions relating to identity, authenticity, and digital manipulation. Consequently, an examination of the current legal position and the possibility of legislative reform assumes considerable significance.
VI. METHOD
A. Evolution of Personality Rights in India
In contrast to jurisdictions where personality rights are governed by dedicated statutes, the Indian framework has emerged largely through judicial interpretation. The doctrine has evolved through a combination of constitutional privacy principles and the common law doctrine of passing off.
An important constitutional foundation was laid in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu,[14] where the Supreme Court recognized an individual’s right to prevent the unauthorized publication of matters relating to private life. Although the dispute did not concern commercial appropriation, the decision introduced the constitutional values of dignity and personal autonomy that later informed personality rights jurisprudence.
These principles received further reinforcement in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India,[15] in which a nine-judge Bench affirmed privacy as an intrinsic component of Article 21. The judgment emphasized informational self-determination, dignity, and liberty as essential constitutional guarantees. Consequently, personality rights derive legitimacy not merely from their economic significance but also from the constitutional conception of individual identity.
The commercial dimension of these rights developed through subsequent judicial pronouncements. In ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises,[16] The Delhi High Court acknowledged the existence of publicity rights and recognized that celebrities possess enforceable interests in the economic value associated with their identity.
The doctrine was strengthened in D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House,[17] where the unauthorized use of singer Daler Mehndi’s persona was restrained. The Court observed that celebrity identity possesses independent commercial worth and that its unauthorized appropriation amounts to deception.
Similarly, in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers,[18] The Delhi High Court restrained the use of photographs of Amitabh Bachchan and Jaya Bachchan in advertisements without authorization and recognized endorsement rights as valuable commercial interests. Protection was extended further by the Madras High Court in Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions,[19] which prevented the unauthorized exploitation of actor Rajinikanth’s persona.
B. Personality Rights and Artificial Intelligence: Limits of Existing Remedies
The rise of artificial intelligence has transformed identity into a digitally reproducible asset. Technologies such as generative AI, deepfakes, and voice-cloning systems are capable of recreating a person’s appearance, speech, and mannerisms without consent. Such developments present challenges that extend beyond conventional endorsement disputes and commercial appropriation.
Indian courts have sought to address these concerns through existing legal doctrines. In Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors.,[20] The Delhi High Court granted an omnibus injunction restraining unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s name, image, and other personality attributes. The Court recognized the growing risks arising from digital technologies and emphasized the necessity of preventive relief.
The issue assumed greater significance in Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors.,[21] where protection was sought over the plaintiff’s image, voice, signature, and distinctive expressions. The Delhi High Court granted extensive relief and acknowledged that technological advancements had created unprecedented opportunities for misuse. The Court highlighted the urgent need to shield individuals from unauthorized exploitation enabled by modern technology.
Likewise, in Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf @ Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors.,[22] The Delhi High Court reaffirmed the proprietary nature of personality rights and restrained their unauthorized commercial use. The judgment reiterated principles previously articulated in earlier decisions concerning the economic value inherent in celebrity identity.
At present, the principal legal basis for such claims remains the common law tort of passing off, which traditionally requires proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and resulting damage. However, harms caused by AI-generated content often fall outside these established requirements. Deepfakes and synthetic voice reproductions may inflict reputational and dignitary injury even in the absence of commercial exploitation. Consequently, many forms of AI-enabled misuse lie beyond the traditional doctrinal boundaries of passing off.
Another limitation is the predominantly celebrity-oriented character of personality rights litigation. Most reported cases involve actors, musicians, or other public figures possessing substantial goodwill and financial resources. Ordinary individuals subjected to deepfake pornography or digital impersonation may experience comparable harms but lack practical access to prompt judicial remedies. This creates an imbalance in the availability of legal protection.
Although the judiciary has demonstrated considerable adaptability, the existing framework remains reactive and fragmented. The increasing sophistication of artificial intelligence exposes the inadequacy of relying solely upon traditional legal mechanisms.
C. The Present Statutory Framework in India and the Need for Reform
India presently lacks a dedicated legislative regime governing personality rights. Protection is instead derived indirectly from existing laws, resulting in a fragmented approach.
The Trade Marks Act, 2019 primarily addresses trademarks and commercial identifiers. Although certain aspects of personality may receive trademark protection under specific circumstances, the statute does not comprehensively address identity-related harms facilitated by artificial intelligence.
Similarly, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 provide mechanisms for intermediary regulation and content removal. These measures have proved useful in tackling instances of digital abuse and facilitating enforcement.
Nevertheless, artificial intelligence has fundamentally altered the nature of identity-related injury. Unlike conventional unauthorized endorsements, AI technologies enable the creation of synthetic representations capable of causing lasting reputational and dignitary harm. Legal doctrines developed in an earlier technological era are ill-suited to address these challenges comprehensively. Accordingly, legislative intervention has become necessary.
VII. SUGGESTIONS
India should enact a dedicated statute specifically addressing personality rights. Such legislation should expressly recognize a person’s name, image, voice, signature, likeness, and distinctive mannerisms as legally protected attributes and define the scope and enforceability of these rights.
The proposed framework should also provide effective remedies, including injunctions, damages, and expedited mechanisms for the removal of infringing digital material. Since identity-based harms often require immediate intervention, delays in obtaining relief may substantially diminish their effectiveness.
Protection should not be confined to celebrities or public figures. Personality rights ought to be recognized as flowing from the values of dignity and autonomy, thereby extending legal protection to all individuals irrespective of fame or commercial reputation.
Furthermore, any future legislation should operate in coordination with existing digital regulatory frameworks.
Although the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 represents a significant development in the regulation of personal data, including photographs, biometric information, and voice samples, it does not specifically address deepfakes, synthetic media, or AI-generated replicas. Consequently, its contribution to personality rights remains indirect.
In the absence of statutory recognition, courts have effectively been compelled to assume a quasi-legislative role. While judicial innovation has significantly contributed to the development of personality rights, reliance upon case-by-case adjudication cannot provide a stable and predictable legal framework. The absence of clear legislative standards continues to create uncertainty regarding the scope, duration, and methods of enforcing such rights.
A comprehensive statutory regime working alongside the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the Information Technology Rules would facilitate more efficient protection of privacy and identity interests. Legislative intervention would also reduce dependence on judicial law-making and establish a coherent framework capable of responding to emerging technological challenges.
VIII. CONCLUSION
The emergence and rapid development of artificial intelligence technologies have fundamentally altered the nature and scale of harms associated with personal identity. Innovations such as deepfakes, voice-cloning systems, and other forms of synthetic media have blurred the traditional distinction between privacy violations and commercial misappropriation. In the absence of dedicated legislation, Indian courts have responded through a gradual expansion of personality rights jurisprudence, drawing upon constitutional values as well as principles derived from trademark law and the doctrine of passing off.
The constitutional foundations of this doctrine were laid through R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu and Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of dignity, individual autonomy, and informational privacy. Building upon these principles, decisions such as ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, and Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions recognized that a celebrity’s identity possesses independent economic value and deserves legal protection against unauthorized exploitation. More recent disputes involving Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor, Jackie Shroff, and Arijit Singh illustrate the willingness of courts to adapt existing principles to challenges arising from artificial intelligence and digital manipulation.
Although these judicial remedies have provided considerable protection, the existing framework remains fragmented and largely dependent upon judicial discretion. The legal mechanisms currently employed were developed to address conventional forms of commercial misappropriation and are not fully equipped to confront the unique challenges posed by technologies capable of creating and disseminating highly realistic digital replicas. Furthermore, the protection afforded by these decisions has largely emerged in the context of the entertainment industry, without the benefit of a comprehensive and uniformly applicable statutory framework.
The absence of a dedicated legislative regime represents a substantial gap in Indian law. As artificial intelligence continues to evolve, exclusive reliance on judicial innovation is unlikely to provide a sufficiently coherent and predictable framework. A specialized statutory regime governing personality rights would enhance legal certainty, provide clear standards of protection, and reinforce the constitutional values of dignity and autonomy while safeguarding individual identity in an increasingly digital society.
With technological tools now capable of reproducing a person’s image, voice, and other identifying attributes with remarkable accuracy, legal responses must evolve beyond remedies designed for a predominantly pre-digital era. Personality rights can no longer be viewed merely through the lens of intellectual property or commercial misappropriation. In the age of artificial intelligence, they have become indispensable to the preservation of personal identity itself and, consequently, to the protection of fundamental human interests.
Shreya Joshi
Dr D Y. Patil Law College, Pune
[1] Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4110.
[2] Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4110.
[3] Titan Indus. Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 (50) P.T.C. 486 (Del.).
[4] R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 S.C.C. 632.
[5] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1.
[6] ICC Dev. (Int’l) Ltd. v. Arvee Enters., 2003 (26) P.T.C. 245 (Del.).
[7] D.M. Ent. Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4790.
[8] Titan Indus. Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 (50) P.T.C. 486 (Del.).
[9] Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Prods., 2015 (62) P.T.C. 351 (Mad.).
[10] Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4110.
[11] Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914.
[12] Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3664.
[13] Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2445.
[14] R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 S.C.C. 632.
[15] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1.
[16] ICC Dev. (Int’l) Ltd. v. Arvee Enters., 2003 (26) P.T.C. 245 (Del.).
[17] D.M. Ent. Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4790.
[18] Titan Indus. Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 (50) P.T.C. 486 (Del.).
[19] Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Prods., 2015 (62) P.T.C. 351 (Mad.).
[20] Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4110.
[21] Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914.
[22] Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3664.