Personality Rights and Their Protection in the Indian Perspective

In the past few years, many artists performing on the stage and businessmen have been using the celebrities' name, their personality traits, mannerisms, and voice samples to earn their livelihood and to promote their business interests. In recent years, famous Bollywood celebrities, including Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor, Jackie Shroff, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Karan Johar, Abhishek Bachchan, and Nagarjuna, have taken recourse to court proceedings to defend their personality rights. The whole phenomenon of personality rights infringement has been accentuated with the recent growth of Artificial Intelligence in the world, including India. Needless to say, in such cases of violation of personality rights, the only recourse is to move the competent courts. At this juncture, it would be worthwhile to examine the legal protections in regard to personality rights available in India.

Personality Rights and the Legal Regime in India

Personality rights are popularly known as the right to publicity. Broadly, it refers to an individual's right to protect and control the unauthorized use of their personality attributes, such as their name, image, voice, likeness, or other distinctive personal features, for commercial gain. These rights encompass two kinds of rights, including the right to protect one's image from commercial exploitation and the right to privacy, which is indicative of one's right to be left alone.1

To date, there exists no specific law or enactment to deal with the infringement of personality rights. Any offended individual can seek a remedy under Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The first Article safeguards the right to freedom of speech and expression, while the latter secures the right to live with dignity and the right to privacy. In addition to these legal provisions, Intellectual Property Rights also offer further safeguards for personality-related interests of individuals.
Moreover, the Copyright Act, 1957, comes in handy in case of celebrities to protect their interests as an extension of moral rights. Specifically, Sections 38, 38A, and 38B of the said Act are noteworthy, which give the performers the right to receive credit and be recognized as the authors of their performances. Similarly, Section 38 gives the performers two kinds of rights, namely, the right to exclusive performance under Section 38A. As per this provision, a performer has the “exclusive right” to make a sound recording or a visual recording of their performance and to prevent others from broadcasting their live performance. Reproduction, use of the performer's work, and communication of performance without obtaining their consent amounts to infringement of their personality rights.2 The second part of such rights pertains to moral rights. Such rights include the right to attribution and integrity under Section 38B. This Section grants performers moral rights, specifically the right to be identified as the performer of their work and to prevent modifications to their performance that could harm their reputation. However, this right does not apply to purely technical modifications for editing, fitting a recording into a limited duration, or other technical adjustments. A performer can take action to stop or seek damages for any distortion, mutilation, or other alteration of their performance that would be detrimental to their reputation.

The Trademark Act, 1999

The Trademark Act, 1999, also provides a degree of protection to personality rights. Section 2(m) of the Act includes “name” in the definition of "mark". Similarly, Section 27 recognises the common law rights of the trademark owner to take action against any person for passing off their goods or services as the goods of another person or as services provided to another.

In India, the growth of the entertainment industry has been phenomenal in recent years. Consequently, the number of cases against the violation of property rights is on the increase. In this regard, some significant cases can be enumerated here as such:

R. Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu (1994)

This case is also known as the Auto Shankar case. In this case, the Supreme Court of India balanced an individual's right to control the commercial use of their identity with the right to publication of records publicly available. The Court held:

“A citizen has a right to safeguard the privacy of his own, his family, marriage, procreation, motherhood, childbearing, and education, among other matters. None can publish anything concerning the above matters without his consent-whether truthful or otherwise, and whether laudatory or critical. If he does so, he would be violating the right to privacy of the person concerned and would be liable in an action for damages.”

ICC Development (International) Ltd. vs Arvee Enterprises, 2003

In this case, the Delhi High Court clarified the scope of personality rights by ruling that they apply exclusively to living individuals or identifiable aspects of their personality and thus exclude non-living entities.

DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs Baby Gift House & Ors, 2010

In this case, the Delhi High Court not only protected the personality rights of the singer Daler Mehndi but also defined its ambit. The Court held that the right of publicity protects individuals against the unauthorized use of their personality, which includes their name, image, voice, and other distinctive attributes. The Court also recognized that such unauthorized use could result in unfair commercial benefit for others, thereby violating the individual's personality rights.

Anil Kapoor vs Simply Life India and Ors, 2023

In this case, the Delhi High Court, while protecting the rights of Bollywood actors, tackled at the same time the growing concern about the possible misuse of AI and its significant aspects on image rights, privacy, and commercial interests of well-known individuals. The Court restrained entities from using Anil Kapoor's persona by employing deepfake and AI and observed that a celebrity's right of endorsement acts as a major source of livelihood, and any attribution of it, without consent, is illegal.

Arijit Singh vs Codible Ventures LLP, 2024

In this case, the Bombay High Court granted an interim injunction against unauthorized use of his (Arijit's)name and likeness by AI tools.

Aishwarya Rai Bachchan vs Aishwaryaworld, 2025

In this case, the Delhi High Court upheld a plea by the actor against false websites selling merchandise (T-shirts, mugs) without approval and AI-generated pornographic content created by face morphing. In her case, the harm is not confined to commercial interests. Her endorsement rights generate revenue, and unauthorized advertisements and online endorsements deprive her of that income. However, the more cantankerous issue pertains to the unauthorized use of her persona (especially in sexually suggestive ways) undermines her fundamental right to live with dignity. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy and the right to live with dignity.7 Experts said that the order highlights India's increasing acceptance of personality rights as being identical to intellectual property, particularly for celebrities who rely on the commercialization of their persona.

Abhishek Bachchan vs The Bollywood Tee Shop, 2025

In this case, the Delhi High Court has restrained several websites and online platforms that were allegedly dishing out inappropriate AI-generated content using aspects of actor Abhishek Bachchan's persona, including his name and photograph. Justice Tejas Karia observed that it was clear that the attributes of Bachchan’s persona -including his name, images, voice, and signature-were being misused by the defendant websites and platforms without authorization from him, by employing technological tools such as AI. “These attributes are linked to the plaintiff's professional work and associations in the course of his career. The unauthorized use of such attributes has the effect of diluting the goodwill and reputation associated with him.”

Karan Johar vs Ashok Kumar, 2025

In this case, the Delhi High Court issued a takedown of infringing websites, social media accounts selling merchandise using the filmmaker's name/images, and disseminating sexually inappropriate content such as memes.

Conclusion

While critics argue that strong personality rights can curtail free expression, the Indian courts have drawn a clear line between the right to free expression and the violation of personality rights of individuals, which also include the individual's right to privacy and right to live with dignity as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The crux of the problem is consent. If anyone wants to use the personal, voice, image, etc. of a celebrity, they must obtain their consent before doing anything further. Otherwise, it is a clear infringement of a celebrity's personality rights. Though there is no specific law or enactment to check this menace, Indian courts are gradually developing a robust jurisprudence to safeguard the personality rights of the celebrities. However, sooner or later, the lawmakers will have to come up with a strong law in this context. While doing so, it will be required to maintain a balance between one's right to free expression and the personality rights of the celebrities.

. . .

References:

Discus