TeaHe has recently released a series by Delhi High Court Bollywood celebrities protecting personality rights From unauthorized commercial use. On 9 and 10 September, Justice Tejas Kariya gave relief to actors Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan, when they misused their images and voices through AI-related materials and goods. A week later, Justice Manmeet PS Arora increased the same security for filmmaker Karan Johar, which prevents the unauthorized use of his personality through deepfack, morphing and other digital manipulation.
Actors Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor and Jackie Shroff have already received such protection, and the latest spate of petitions indicates a wide shock for judicial recognition of personality rights in the digital age.
How are personality rights protected in India?
Personality rights protect other specific symptoms from a person’s name, equality, image, voice, signature, and unauthorized commercial exploitation. Although the same law has not been codified, personality rights in India are based in general law principles of privacy, defamation and propagation rights, and are reinforced through judicial examples. Courts may provide prohibition, prize losses, or issue orders for advertisements, goods, AI-borne materials, or misuse of digital platforms.
Statutory protection is spread in intellectual property laws. The Copyright Act, 1957, gives the artists a grant to both special rights under Section 38A and moral rights under Section 38B, allowing them to control how their performance is re -introduced and objected to any deformation or misuse. The Trade Marx Act, 1999, especially allows celebrities, specific characteristics of their personality, such as names, signature, or even catchfrages to enter as a trademark.
For example, actors like Shah Rukh Khan, Priyanka Chopra, Ajay Devgan and Amitabh Bachchan have recorded their names as a trademark. However, under Section 27 of the strongest security act, the general law of the “passing of” lies in torture, which protects the goodwill of an unregistered mark and prevents wrong bayani that may cheat the public or affect false support. This security is neither automatic nor absolute, as the courts generally require clear evidence of reputation and goodwill before giving relief.
Personality rights have the right to autonomy and privacy inherent in Article 21 of the Constitution. When a celebrity agrees to appear in a film, advertisement or public campaign, they control their public identity. But when the third party prints his image on the goods or using the AI ​​tool to generate deepfac or chatbot without the authority, autonomy is removed and the individual’s dignity and an agreement with the agency.
What have the courts so far decided?
Judicial on personality rights in India detects its origin in the 1995 judgment R. Rajagopal vs Tamil Nadu StateWhile a magazine demanded publishing auto Shankar’s autobiography, a death-owner guilty, recalling the details of his personal life and the alleged relationship with the state officials. The government went to stop the publication on the basis of secrecy and defamation. The Supreme Court admitted that individuals have a legitimate interest in controlling the use of their identity, this security has been based on constitutional rights for privacy. However, it makes it clear that instead of pre -restraint by the state, through tasks such as defamation suits, measures for privacy violations should follow publishing. The court further stated that personal details can be published without consent if they are already part of the public record.
Two decades later, the Madras High Court cristed the emerging principle in a case associated with actor Rajinikanth. The lawsuit was filed against the makers of the film Main Hoon Rajinikanth, misusing the actor’s name, image and the specific style of dialogue. The court insisted that the violation does not require evidence of mythology, confusion or deception if the celebrity is easily identified and accordingly retains the actor’s right to prevent unauthorized business exploitation of its personality.
With the arrival of AI, the courts have suffered with novel threats to identify. In 2023, the Delhi High Court provided extensive protection on his personality rights by the Delhi High Court, stopping 16 online institutions from exploiting his name, image, voice, equality, or his catchfrez “Jhakas”, which he made popular in films. Justice Prasathiba Singh clarified that the free speech extends to “real writing, parody, satire and criticism”, but cannot be extended to justify commercial exploitation. He warned that when such use “crosses the line and resulted in tarnishing, darkening or threatening the person’s personality and their elements associated with them, it would be illegal.” Referring to the actor’s converted images with other actresses, he said it was “not only aggressive” for them, but also for third parties, saying that the court “could not look at an eye for such misuse,” especially where weakening and pen is torture.
Similarly, in May 2024, the Delhi High Court stopped the personality and promotional rights of actor Jackie Shroff, preventing e-commerce platforms and AI chatbots from misusing his name, image, voice and equality without consent. The court noticed that “unauthorized use of these characteristics for commercial purposes not only violates these rights, but also dilutes the brand equity manufactured by the plaintiff over the years.”
A few months later, the Bombay High Court gave an important verdict in favor of singer Arijit Singh, who alleged that the Sandest Ventures LLP used AI tools to create artificial recordings of its voice, a practice known as voice cloning. The court reiterated that the singer’s name, voice, image, equality, personality and other symptoms are protected under his personality and propagation rights. Expressing concern over the risks of Justice Ri Chagla, Justice Ri Chagla saw, “The discretion of this court is a shock that the way is the way in which celebrities, especially the current plaintiffs, are in the grip of being targeted by artists, unauthorized generative AI content.”
To what extent can such rights free expression be done?
Critics argue that the expansion of personality rights can prevent conservation -free expression. Article 19 (1) of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech to every citizen, including criticism, parody or creative freedom to satire. However, the Indian courts have repeatedly confirmed that this right is not absolute and should be balanced against a person’s dignity and autonomy.
In DM Entertainment Pvt. Limited V. Baby Gift House (2010), Delhi High Court settled a petition filed by a company, in which singer Dalr Mehndi handed over his personality rights. The company had alleged that gift shops were selling dolls that were “cheap copying, and similar to equality”, which was the amount of unauthorized commercial exploitation of their personality. While providing an prohibition, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat warned that carcatures, lamping, and parodies would not usually do not violate promotional rights. He warned that “an overlapping” on the propagation rights of a famous person can cool down a free speech and deprive the public of the entire style of expression.
This theory was re -confirmed after more than a decade. Digital Collectables PTE Limited V. Galactus Funware Technology Private. Limited (2023), which included unauthorized use of equality of sports stars despite the special license organized by the plaintiff. The Delhi High Court refused to broaden publicity rights at the cost of independent expression, given that the public domain had already misled the public to assume the public properly. Justice Amit Bansal clarified that “the use of celebrity names or images for lampooning, satire, parody, art, scholarships, music, academics, news and other similar uses is a valid practice of Article 19 (1) (A) and not a fund for violation of public rights.
What are the concerns?
Research Fellow Jwalika Balaji of Vidhi Center for Legal Policy told Hindu This is a comprehensive legislative structure requiring hours to ensure that the enforcement piece of such rights is not dependent on judicial examples. “In the absence of a regulatory rule, reactions remain dismissal and ad hoc. Even more importantly, there is a good line between artistic construction and violations of personality rights. Exceptions should be clearly recognized and strongly honored, especially in those times when concerns are large on the censorship loom,” he said.
He further stated that personality rights are not a special privilege of celebrities, because all individuals enjoy the right to privacy. “Ordinary citizens, especially women, are rapidly targeted through deepfec and revenge pornography. Laws must be tailoring to address this inconsistent impact on women,” he said. He said that in such cases, courts often instruct the government to block URL to replicate or misuse their images without consent to a person. However, he warned that keeping an eye on every such violation and acting on it remains a Hercules.
