Why in 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.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Protection of Personality Rights in India
• Court Rulings on Personality Rights in India
• Balancing Personality Rights and Free Expression
• Concerns Around Personality Rights in India

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.