Abstract
The unprecedented growth of artificial intelligence, deepfake technology and digital platforms has significantly enhanced the commercial value of individual identity. At the same time, it has increased the risk of unauthorised exploitation of names, images, voices and likenesses of public figures. Although India does not have a dedicated legislation governing personality rights, constitutional principles and judicial precedents have gradually evolved to recognise and protect such rights. The recent petition filed by Indian cricketer Abhishek Sharma before the Delhi High Court seeking protection against the misuse of his identity demonstrates the increasing importance of personality rights in contemporary jurisprudence. This article examines the conceptual foundations of personality rights, their judicial development in India, the impact of artificial intelligence, and the need for a comprehensive legislative framework.
Keywords: Personality Rights, Right of Publicity, Right to Privacy, Artificial Intelligence, Deepfakes, Celebrity Rights, Delhi High Court.
I. Introduction
In the digital economy, an individual’s identity has emerged as a commercially valuable asset. The name, image, voice, signature style and even mannerisms of a person can be replicated and disseminated globally within seconds. Technological advancements, particularly artificial intelligence and deepfake technology, have enabled the creation of highly realistic digital reproductions capable of misleading the public and causing reputational and economic harm.
The legal response to this phenomenon has been the gradual recognition of personality rights, also referred to as the right of publicity. These rights confer upon an individual the authority to control and commercially exploit the use of his or her identity and to prevent unauthorised appropriation by others.
The issue has gained renewed significance with the petition instituted by cricketer Abhishek Sharma before the Delhi High Court, seeking protection against alleged misuse of his personality attributes through artificial intelligence-generated content and other digital material. The proceedings indicate that personality rights are increasingly becoming an important component of India’s constitutional and intellectual property jurisprudence.
II. Concept and Nature of Personality Rights
Personality rights may be defined as the rights of an individual to control the commercial exploitation of aspects of his or her identity, including:
- Name and nickname;
- Photograph and image;
- Voice and signature;
- Distinctive appearance and likeness;
- Catchphrases and mannerisms;
- Digital avatars and AI-generated representations.
The rationale behind the doctrine is twofold. First, every individual possesses an inherent interest in protecting personal autonomy and dignity. Secondly, celebrities and public figures invest substantial time and effort in developing their public persona, which acquires independent commercial value and should not be exploited without authorisation.
III. Constitutional Foundations of Personality Rights
India does not presently have a codified law dealing exclusively with personality rights. Judicial recognition has primarily emanated from the Constitution and the common law.
A. Article 21 and the Right to Privacy
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Judicial interpretation has expanded its ambit to include the right to privacy, dignity and informational autonomy.
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, the Supreme Court recognised privacy as an intrinsic part of Article 21 and emphasised that individuals possess control over the dissemination and use of personal information.^1 The decision significantly strengthened the constitutional basis of personality rights.
B. Passing Off and Unfair Competition
Indian courts have also protected celebrity identities through the tort of passing off. Where the unauthorised use of a person’s identity creates a false impression of endorsement or association, courts have granted injunctive relief.
C. Defamation and Reputation
In several instances, misuse of an individual’s likeness has resulted not only in commercial exploitation but also in reputational harm. Accordingly, personality rights frequently overlap with the law of defamation.
IV. Judicial Evolution of Personality Rights in India
A. ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises
The Delhi High Court recognised that the right of publicity vests in an individual and not in an event organiser.^2 The Court observed that a celebrity’s persona possesses independent commercial value capable of legal protection.
B. DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House
In this landmark decision, the Delhi High Court protected the personality rights of singer Daler Mehndi and held that unauthorised use of a celebrity’s identity for commercial purposes constituted actionable misappropriation.^3
C. Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers
The Court restrained the defendants from using photographs of Amitabh Bachchan and Jaya Bachchan for commercial advertisements without authorisation and affirmed that celebrities possess proprietary rights in their persona.^4
D. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India
The Delhi High Court granted a comprehensive injunction restraining the misuse of actor Anil Kapoor’s name, voice, image and the expression “Jhakaas”.^5 The judgment is particularly significant because it recognised the dangers posed by artificial intelligence and deepfake technologies.
E. Jackie Shroff v. Peppy Stores
The Delhi High Court recognised the actor’s personality rights while simultaneously emphasising that such rights cannot extinguish legitimate parody, criticism and free speech protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.^6
V. The Abhishek Sharma Petition: A New Frontier
The petition filed by Indian cricketer Abhishek Sharma before the Delhi High Court marks another significant development in personality-rights jurisprudence. Sharma alleged that artificial intelligence-generated content and unauthorised online material had exploited his identity and caused reputational injury.
During the proceedings, the Court noted that there exists a delicate distinction between personality rights and defamation and that the law must evolve to adequately address technological misuse of identity.
The case is significant for three reasons:
- It highlights the increasing misuse of celebrity identities through AI-generated content;
- It demonstrates the willingness of courts to extend protection beyond traditional intellectual property doctrines; and
- It underscores the urgent need for a statutory framework governing digital identity rights.
VI. Recent Judicial Protection of Personality Rights
In recent years, several celebrities and public figures have approached courts seeking protection of their identities:
1. Ravi Kishan
The Delhi High Court granted interim protection against unauthorised AI-generated content and directed the removal of infringing material exploiting the actor’s persona.
2. Allu Arjun
The Court restrained unauthorised commercial use of the actor’s image, likeness and other personality attributes.
3. Preity Zinta
The Bombay High Court entertained proceedings against social media and artificial intelligence platforms concerning alleged deepfake videos and unauthorised digital representations.
4. Hrithik Roshan
The actor sought judicial intervention against misuse of his name and likeness.
5. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan
Both actors have approached courts seeking protection against unauthorised digital exploitation of their identities.
6. Salman Khan and Kumar Sanu
The courts have granted protection against commercial and online misuse of their personas.
7. Raj Shamani
The Delhi High Court recently recognised the personality rights of the entrepreneur and digital creator, indicating that such protection is not confined solely to film personalities and sports icons.
VII. Artificial Intelligence and the New Challenges to Personality Rights
Artificial intelligence has fundamentally altered the nature of identity misappropriation. Deepfake technology is capable of replicating:
- Facial features;
- Voice patterns;
- Expressions and gestures;
- Entire digital personas.
The consequences include:
- False endorsements;
- Reputational damage;
- Financial fraud;
- Dissemination of misinformation;
- Commercial exploitation without consent.
Existing legal principles are often inadequate to address the speed and scale at which AI-generated content can proliferate.
VIII. Need for a Legislative Framework
The absence of a comprehensive legislation on personality rights has resulted in several unresolved questions:
- What constitutes a protected personality attribute?
- Whether personality rights survive after death?
- What should be the liability of intermediaries and AI platforms?
- How should courts balance personality rights with freedom of speech and artistic expression?
- What remedies should be available against deepfakes and synthetic media?
A dedicated legislation on personality rights would provide certainty, facilitate enforcement and enable India to effectively regulate the misuse of digital identities.
IX. Conclusion
The emergence of artificial intelligence has transformed personality into one of the most valuable and vulnerable forms of intellectual capital. The recent petition filed by Abhishek Sharma illustrates the rapidly evolving nature of personality-rights litigation in India. Judicial decisions have progressively recognised that an individual’s identity deserves legal protection against unauthorised exploitation.
However, reliance solely on judicial innovation may not be sufficient to address the complexities posed by artificial intelligence and digital technologies. The time appears ripe for India to enact a comprehensive statutory framework governing personality rights, balancing individual autonomy, commercial interests and freedom of expression.
Footnotes
- Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
- ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, 2003 SCC OnLine Del 1056.
- DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4798.
- Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382.
- Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914.
- Jackie Shroff v. Peppy Stores and Others, CS (Comm.) No. 278 of 2024, Delhi High Court.
- R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632.
- Kiran Bedi v. Committee of Inquiry, (1989) 1 SCC 494.
- P. Narayanan, Intellectual Property Law, 5th ed. (Eastern Law House, 2017).
- W.R. Cornish, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, 9th ed. (Sweet & Maxwell, 2019).
