Protection of Personality Rights in India

Law in the age of Digital Identity

In an era where a person’s voice can be cloned, their face morphed, and their identity commodified at the click of a button, the law has been compelled to confront an entirely new form of vulnerability, the digital exploitation of personality. Over the last decade, Indian courts have responded to this challenge with a rapidly evolving jurisprudence on personality rights and transforming what was once a modest common law principle into a sophisticated shield against technological misuse. Despite the absence of a dedicated statute governing personality rights, Indian courts have constructed a powerful framework by interpreting constitutional guarantees, particularly Article 21, alongside principles of intellectual property and tort law. This judicial evolution reflects a growing recognition that identity in the digital age is not merely personal; it is economic, reputational, and deeply fragile.

Judicial Perspective – Personal Liberty to Commercial Identity

Personality rights, which encompass the rights to publicity and privacy, find their constitutional roots in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, guaranteeing the right to life and personal liberty. These rights protect an individual’s exclusive authority over the commercial exploitation of their identity, including their name, image, likeness, voice, and other uniquely identifiable attributes. Courts have consistently required three elements to establish infringement: the celebrity status of the plaintiff, identifiability from the unauthorized use, and commercial exploitation by the defendant. Through this formulation, Indian jurisprudence has reframed personality rights as both an extension of personal liberty and a legally protected economic interest.

The modern story of personality rights in India begins with an unusual object, a doll. In D.M. Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. Baby Gift House (2010), the Delhi High Court was confronted with dolls that resembled singer Daler Mehndi and were programmed to sing his songs. The Court held that the unauthorized commercial use of a celebrity persona amounted to violation of the right of publicity, false endorsement, and passing off. It recognized that a celebrity’s identity had acquired the character of a quasi-property right, deserving protection from commercial misappropriation. At the heart of the decision lay a simple but powerful principle: every individual has the inherent right to decide whether and how their identity may be commercially exploited. This case laid the foundation for a jurisprudence that would soon be tested by far more complex technologies.

The John Doe Remedy

As misuse migrated to digital platforms; courts were confronted with an enforcement dilemma. How does one restrain anonymous and rapidly multiplying infringers? In Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022), the Delhi High Court responded with a procedural innovation: India’s first John Doe order in a personality rights case. The order restrained not only named defendants but also unknown entities across the internet from exploiting Mr. Bachchan’s name, voice, and likeness. What makes the judgment remarkable was its forward-looking scope. The Court extended protection to future technologies, including NFTs and the metaverse, acknowledging that infringement would not remain confined to existing platforms. The law, the Court signaled, must move at the speed of technology or risk irrelevance.

The economic dimension of personality rights came sharply into focus in Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2023). The Delhi High Court recognized that a celebrity’s right of endorsement is not merely reputational, but it is a major source of livelihood. The Court protected not only Mr. Kapoor’s name and image but also his distinctive manner of speaking, dialogues, gestures, and signature expression “Jhakaas” These elements, it held, were inseparable from his public persona and therefore entitled to legal protection. This judgment expanded personality rights beyond static physical likeness to include expressive traits, acknowledging that modern celebrity identity is composed of voice, style, and performance.

Artificial Intelligence and the Threat it poses

If earlier cases dealt with imitation, Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP (2024) confronted replication itself. AI tools were being used to convert any voice into that of the singer without his consent. The Court held that Mr. Arijit Singh’s voice, vocal style, technique, arrangements, interpretations, mannerisms, and signature constituted protectable facets of his personality rights. It further ruled that making AI tools available for such voice conversion without authorization amounted to infringement. The judgment recognized that AI-driven exploitation does more than imitate; it enables mass deception and commercial misuse at an unprecedented scale.

Personality rights jurisprudence has not remained confined to film stars and singers. In Raj Shamani v. John Doe (2025), the Delhi High Court extended protection to an Indian content creator, entrepreneur, podcaster, author, and public speaker. The Court held that Mr. Raj Shamani name, voice, image, and likeness were protectable personality traits and restrained the creation and dissemination of morphed and distorted content that was defamatory and demeaning. The injunction applied to misuse through “any existing or future technology such as Artificial Intelligence and deepfake technology in any medium, format or platform.” This decision marked a significant expansion of personality rights to digital influencers and creators whose identity forms the core of their professional life.

Free Speech versus Parody

While courts have strengthened personality rights, they have also been careful not to stifle free expression. In Raj Shamani’s case, the Court distinguished content that clearly identifies itself as parody, satire, lampooning, or criticism, observing that such expression requires different legal treatment. This distinction preserves constitutional protection for artistic and critical speech while ensuring that commercial exploitation disguised as expression does not escape scrutiny. Recognizing the role of intermediaries, courts have imposed concrete obligations on digital platforms. In Raj Shamani’s case, social media platforms were directed to remove infringing content within 72 hours, disclose subscriber information of unknown infringers, and respond to future takedown requests within 48 hours. These directions transform personality rights from abstract principles into enforceable digital remedies.

From a singing doll to artificial intelligence voice cloning, Indian courts have steadily adapted personality rights to meet the demands of a changing technological landscape. The journey from D.M. Entertainment to Arijit Singh reveals a judiciary that has consistently expanded protection while remaining mindful of free speech. Yet the absence of a comprehensive statutory framework continues to create uncertainty. Judicial creativity has filled the gap, but legislative codification would provide clarity, consistency, and predictability in safeguarding individual autonomy over identity in an increasingly digital world. In the age of deepfakes and digital personas, personality is no longer just who we are, it is what the law must now protect.