Right to be Real: “Deepfakes Vs. Personality Rights: Safeguarding Identity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

This Blog is Written by Bhoomika Mishra, 3rd Year, BA LLB, Amity University, Madhya Pradesh.

(Blog IV, Edition VI)

Introduction

In India personality rights are about protecting a person’s control over how their identity is used for commercial purposes. These rights have mainly developed through court judgment.  The rise of intelligence including deep fakes and voice cloning has made it easier for people to misuse others identities. This has led courts to broaden the scope of personality rights. Recently, the Delhi and Bombay High Courts have stopped AI - driven misuse of celebrities’ names, images and likenesses. Despite these courts decisions the laws we have now are not comprehensive enough. We need laws to ensure that personality rights are protected consistently and effectively in the age of AI. In India certain things like voice, appearance and signature phrases are closely tied to individuals. For example: Amitabh Bachchan’s deep voice is instantly recognizable. Rajinikanth’s sunglasses and Shahrukh khan’s open arm pose are also easily identifiable. These associations come from years of recognition and have commercial value. They are often used in advertising, endorsements and digital media. This also makes them vulnerable to misuse. The growth of platforms and artificial intelligence has led to more unauthorized exploitation of personal identity. This is not just about imitation anymore. It includes complex forms of misappropriation. So, the question is: if personality and identity can be used for gain do people have a right to control how they are used? Indian courts have said yes personality rights do exist. They have recognized that individuals have a right to control how their identity is used commercially. This is a step in protecting people’s identities in the age of AI.

Evolution of Personality Rights in India 

Personality rights are about how a person can control what happens to their identity when it is used to make money. In India the courts have been the ones to make sure people know about these rights and to help them grow. The idea of personality rights started to take shape with the case of R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N. , 1994. The Supreme Court said that people have the right to stop others from talking about them in public without their permission. This includes things like family, marriage and education. The court said this is part of the right to privacy that is guaranteed by the Constitution of India. On, in the case of ICC Development (International) Ltd. V. Arvee Enterprises, 2003 the Delhi High Court said that people have a “right of publicity”. This means that nobody can use a persons identity to make money without their permission. The court also said that this right belongs to the person and not to any companies or events.  This idea was made stronger in the case of Titan Industries Ltd. V. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012. The Delhi High Court said that people have the right to control how their identity is used to make money.  It is worth noting that Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said something in the case of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017. He said that people have the right to control their life and how they appear to the world. This includes the right to stop others from using their name, picture and other personal things to make money without their permission.  So it is clear that personality rights are recognized by the courts in India. These rights are based on two things: the guarantee of human dignity in the constitution and the protection of the money that can be made from a persons identity. Personality rights are important because they help people control what happens to their identity when it is used make money. The courts in India have said that personality rights are a part of the right to privacy and they have helped to make sure that people’s identities are protected.

Threats to Personality Rights Posed by Artificial Intelligence 

It is imperative to note that technological advances have altered not merely the scale but the nature of identity misuse. Tools that can make videos and copy voices are now really good at making people look and sound like others often without their permission. This change is a problem. AI made content can make it seem like someone said or did something they did not which can hurt their reputation trick people and lead to loss. Once this kind of content is online it is hard to find, stop or fix. In this situation the rights to control one’s personality are very important. These rights are not about stopping companies from using someone’s images without permission. They are also, about stopping people from copying and changing someone’s identity online. Indian courts are starting to understand this and are protecting these rights to deal with these kinds of harm.

Judicial Intervention against AI Driven Threats to Personality Rights and the Need for Statutory Legislative Framework to Protect Personality Rights

Recently courts have taken proactive steps to protect personality rights in the digital world. Here are some examples:

• Sonakshi Sinha v. Character Technologies Inc. And others, CS (Comm) 275/2026:

The Delhi High Court stopped a company from using the plantiff’s name, image, voice and likeness for gain through technology including AI and deep fakes. This use was seen as a violation of personality and publicity rights.

• Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi and others 2022 SCC Online Del 4110:

The Delhi High Court ordered a halt to the misuse of the actor’s persona and celebrity status to promote goods and services without permission.

• Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India and others 2023 SCC Online Del 6914:

The Delhi High Court immediately stopped the use of the actor’s name, image and voice to create merchandise or content using AI, machine learning, deepfakes or face morphing.

• Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory (P) Ltd. 2025 SCC Online Bom 546:

The Bombay High Court ruled that using the plantiff’s name and personality atttributes in a film title without permission was a violation of his personality rights, publicity rights and right to privacy.

• Akkineni Nagarjuna v. 2025 SCC Online Del 6331:

The Delhi High Court stopped the use or misappropriation of the plantiff’s name, image, likeness and other identifiable attributes through technology including AI and deep fakes for personal gain without consent. 

• Ravi Shankar v. John Doe(s) 2025 SCC Online Del 6332:

The Delhi High Court restrained the infringement of the plantiff’s name, voice, image, likeness and unique style of discourse across all formats and mediums including AI generated content.

• Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com, 2025 SCC Online Del 5943:

The Delhi High Court stopped the use of plaintiffs name, image, likeness and other identifiable attributes through technology including AI and deep fakes citing a violation of her personality and moral rights.

• Suniel Shetty v. John Doe(s) I.A. No. 32198 of 2025:

The Bombay High Court granted an injunction restraining the misappropriation of the plaintiffs name, voice, image, likeness, distinctive mannerisms and signature including through AI generated content.  Collectively, the court judgments show that Indian courts are taking a role in protecting people’s rights in the digital world especially when it comes to threats from artificial intelligence. However, with these court decisions the biggest challenge Indian courts face is that there is no specific law to deal with personality rights. The current laws offer some protection. It is not complete. For example:

• Sections 38, 38A and 38B  of the Copyright Act, 1957 give performers some rights to control how their performances are used and prevent changes that could harm their reputation.
• Section 27 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 protects a person’s name against false claims and fake endorsements.
• Section 66C and 65D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 deal with identity theft and online impersonation.

Despite these laws many parts of a person’s identity. Like their gestures, voice, mannerism and style are not covered. This is a problem, especially with threats, from AI.

The Path Forward: Need for a Statutory Framework to Protect Personality Rights

Indian courts have really taken the lead in deciding how personality rights should work. The problem is that they are still making a lot of decisions on their own and there is no clear law that tells them what to do. This means that people do not always get the protection and it is hard to know what the law really says. When courts do make decisions it is often on a case by case basis. It depends a lot on who is making the decision. This can lead to results in different cases. Indian courts also have to be very careful when they are deciding how to balance personality rights with the right to free speech. This is a hard thing to do especially on the internet, where things can spread very quickly. Once something is online it is hard to stop it from being being seen by a lot of people. So Indian courts need to have a law to follow a law that is just, fair and reasonable about personality rights to make sure that everyone is treated fairly and that the law is clear. Personality rights are important and Indian courts and personality rights need to be handled in a better way. 

(Write to the author at bhoomikamishra210@gmail.com.)