Between Privacy, Property, And Publicity: The Emerging Jurisprudence of Personality Rights in India
Introduction
According to Locke’s theory, when a person puts in labour to create property, whether intellectual or physical, the end result inherently belongs to that person. Any use by others without consent therefore violates this natural entitlement to the fruits of one’s labour.[1] Personality Rights or Publicity Rights are the rights which can be exercised by anyone to control the commercial use of their identity or persona and recover damages, in case of its unauthorised use. The issues related to personality rights form part of a highly undeveloped or uncertain area of law.[2] In practice, India currently does not have any statute to govern Personality rights. It is governed by privacy provisions, Intellectual Property Laws and Personal Liberty guaranteed by the Constitution under Article 21. In today’s digital age, where technology is thriving like never before and online merchandising is increasing every day, digital threats, like AI-generated deepfakes etc, are also on rise. In this blog, the author traces the evolution of personality rights in India, analyses recent Delhi High Court’s ruling involving Bollywood celebrities, compares India’s jurisprudence to that of other jurisdictions and discusses the need for statutory codification in India.
Evolution
In the late 19th–20th centuries, an individual’s identity started getting legal protection. Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum (1953)[3] and Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting (1977)[4] established the “right of publicity,” in the U.S. which provided proprietary control to the celebrities over their persona at the state level. In English law, claimants rely on passing off [5], copyright, or privacy/confidence actions.[6] The Article 9 of Civil Code of France[7] ensures privacy and penalizes unauthorized use, while as per German Law, right to personality is of non-commercial nature, but compensation can be asked in cases related to right to publicity. [8]In India, both the approach, i.e. non-commercial and dignity-based are followed.
Judicial Recognition in India
In the case of R RajaGopal v. State of Tamil Nadu[9] personality rights were first considered as a part of the right to privacy. It was stated that using a person’s name or likeness without his/her consent for any kind of purpose would infringe his/her right of privacy. In ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises[10] It was held that the right of publicity is an individual’s right and only he/she can benefit from it. In Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers[11], similar principle was followed and held that using a famous person’s identity without his/her permission is against the principle that “when, where and how a person’s identity can be used” and the court termed this as violation of his/her right to publicity. In D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House [12], the Delhi High Court restrained sale of a doll modeled after famous singer Daler Mehndi. Other cases like Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. (2023)[13], and Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store (2024)[14] expanded the scope of protection, particularly against online and AI-generated misuse.
Recent Delhi High Court Rulings
Shatrughan Prasad Sinha v. John Doe [15]
Veteran actor Shatrughan Sinha filed a suit seeking protection of his personality rights against several online platforms and websites for generating AI-based deepfakes, manipulated images, and other digital content using his name, image, voice, likeness, and iconic catchphrase “khamosh” without his consent. The Bombay High Court recognised that these attributes constitute protectable elements of the plaintiff’s persona and right to publicity. The Court observed that the unauthorised exploitation of a celebrity’s identity on digital platforms, particularly through artificial intelligence technologies, can lead to serious reputational harm and commercial misappropriation.
Accordingly, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from creating, publishing, or disseminating any AI-generated content, deepfakes, manipulated media, or merchandise that exploits the plaintiff’s persona. The Court also directed the defendants to remove all infringing links and content and restrained them from using the plaintiff’s identity for any commercial or personal gain. In doing so, the Court noted that personality rights may be protected through the doctrine of passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as well as the moral rights of performers under the Copyright Act, 1957, reflecting the judiciary’s growing recognition of personality rights in the digital age.
Karan Johar v. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors.[16]
Filmmaker Karan Johar recently sought relief against multiple online sites for exploiting his persona. The defendants operated websites and social media pages which featured AI-generated videos, memes, and merchandise in Karan Johar’s name and likeness. The Delhi High Court protected Karan Johar’s “proprietary right over his persona” and held that unauthorized commercial exploitation leads to an infringement.
An interim injunction has been granted by Justice Pratibha M. Singh, confining the defendants from using Karan’s personality traits for commercial purposes including AI-generated deepfakes and also directed the domain registrars and intermediaries to discontinue the infringing content.
Abhishek Bachchan v. The Bollywood Tee Shop & Ors.[17]
Actor Abhishek Bachchan sued online sellers for using his personality traits without his consent. The Delhi High Court found that defendants were indulged into unauthorized commercial use of Bachchan’s distinct identity and persona which can also mislead the consumers. An ad-interim injunction has been granted by Justice Tejas Karia restraining the sale of infringing goods.
Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com & Ors.[18]
Actress Aishwarya Rai Bachchan also filed a suit against online sites, for generating her AI deepfakes and using her name or other characteristics of her persona without her consent. The Delhi High Court protected her right to dignity and personality under Article 21. The defendants were asked to stop misusing her persona through any medium, including AI technologies.
On similar grounds and reasoning, the Delhi High Court has protected the personality and publicity rights of veteran Amitabh Bachchan and Tollywood actor Nagarjuna. By a careful analysis of all the recent Delhi High Court judgments on personality rights, it can be said that these rights not only protect the commercial interests but also protect the personal dignity reputation. These cases played an important role for expansion of personality rights jurisprudence in India, particularly in response to emerging digital threats.
Comparative Jurisprudence
A strong property-right approach to publicity is followed in every state of the United States by some statute or common law. Celebrities can prevent unauthorized merchandising of their name, image, or voice with the help of tort of appropriation, as held in Midler v. Ford Motor Co. (1988) and White v. Samsung (1992).[19] Laws have been legislated to regulate the AI-generated replicas like California’s AB 2602[20] and AB 1836[21] and the posthumous rights are protected by the Elvis Act.[22] In the U.K., people must rely on passing off, privacy or confidence as there are no standalone publicity rights. Claimants can also rely on the Human Rights Act[23] and Article 8 of the ECHR.[24] In France, using a person’s image without his/her consent is treated as violation of his/her dignity unless justified by public interest. Therefore, it is prohibited under Article 9 of the Civil Code and Article 226-1 of the Penal Code.[25] Similarly, German Law also protects individual identity against misuse, hence prioritizing privacy and honour rather than property.[26]
Challenges in Personality Rights and The Need For Statutory Codification In India
Recent technological and doctrinal shifts have posed challenges over the protection and regulation of personality rights. Artificial intelligence and deepfakes have increased the need for stronger protection of personality rights. Recent Indian cases confirm that Indian courts have viewed unauthorized AI-based identity use as infringement and stopped the misuse of celebrity voices and images by AI-driven technologies, still there is ambiguity that whether training AI models using publicly available images of celebrities infringe copyright or publicity rights. Specific statutes are present in some jurisdictions, like California, to regulate digital replicas and mandate watermarking, while India still lacks such kind of legislative safeguards. Balancing publicity rights with freedom of expression is another critical doctrinal issue, as Courts have recognized exceptions for parody, commentary, and news reporting. Satire and Caricature were held non-infringing in cases like D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House. Unlike copyright, personality rights are not exhausted by prior licensing. Unauthorized merchandise or endorsements beyond agreed terms is also actionable, as reaffirmed in Karan Johar V. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors. Such gaps highlight the urgent need for statutory codification in India. Currently, reliance is placed on doctrines under the Trade Marks Act, Copyright Act, IT Act, and tort law etc., a new statute or the forthcoming Personal Data Protection Bill can revolutionize personality and publicity rights in the digital age.
Conclusion
From implicit privacy protections to explicit recognition as proprietary and dignitary rights, India has witnessed the evolution of personality rights. Recent rulings of the Delhi High Court have showcased the judicial protection provided to safeguard celebrity identities against unauthorised use and digital exploitation. Still, there is a need for statutory protection to fill the gaps that cannot be filled currently. Comparatively, while the U.S. monetizes identity and Europe humanizes it, India balances between the two. As AI and digital media reshape notions of identity, the need for a statute becomes important. Codification would protect individuals from exploitation while preserving freedom of expression. It’ll help one’s identity, shaped by labour and personality, remains their own in both law and conscience.
Author:–Neelabh Mishra, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or IP & Legal Filing.
Maharashtra National Law University Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar
[1] See generally John Locke, Second Treatise of Government ch. V, §27 (1690); see also William W. Fisher III, Theories of Intellectual Property, in New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property 168, 171–72 (Stephen Munzer ed., Cambridge Univ. Press 2001).
Law Journal Library – HeinOnline.org
[2] Law Journal Library – HeinOnline.org
[3] First Last, Microsoft Word – Haelan.doc, (Nov. 26, 2008), https://rightofpublicity.com/pdf/cases/haelan.pdf.
[4] Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. Reports: Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977)., (May 27, 2009), https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep433/usrep433562/usrep433562.pdf.
[5] Royal Courts of Justice, Irvine and ors – v – TalkSport Ltd, (June 7, 2010), https://www.ip4all.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/irvineorsv.talksportltdcoa01042003.pdf.
[6] OBG etc.doc, (May 2, 2007), https://www.ip4all.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/douglasv.helloltdhol02052007.pdf.
[7] (Jan. 21, 2010), https://www.fd.ulisboa.pt/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Codigo-Civil-Frances-French-Civil-Code-english-version.pdf.
[8] Marcus von Welser, Right of publicity in Germany, Lexology (Nov. 19, 2019), https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9912348d-a291-49a1-9b80-2fcc4e7075c9.
[9] R. Rajagopal & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264.
[10] ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises & Anr., 2003 (26) PTC 245 (Del).
[11] Titan Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del).
[12] D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors., CS (OS) No. 893/2002, decided 29 Apr. 2010 (Del.).
[13] Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914.
[14] Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2137.
[15] Shatrughan Prasad Sinha v. John Doe, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 1241
[16] Karan Johar V. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors, (High Ct. Delhi At New Delhi 2025). (Sept. 19, 2025).
[17] Abhishek Bachchan V. The Bollywood Tee Shop & Ors, (High Ct. Delhi At New Delhi, Sept. 11, 2025).
[18] Aishwarya Rai Bachchan V. Aishwaryaworld.Com & Ors, (High Ct. Delhi At New Delhi, Sept. 11, 2025).
[19] Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1988) & White v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 971 F.2d 1395 (9th Cir. 1992).
[20] Cal. Assemb. B. 2602, 2023–2024 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2023), https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2602/id/2928937/California-2023-AB2602-Introduced.html.
[21] Cal. Assemb. B. 1836, 2023–2024 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2023), https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1836/id/2884620/California-2023-AB1836-Introduced.html.
[22] Act of Apr. 25, 2024, ch. 588, 2023–2024 Gen. Assemb. (Tenn. 2024), https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/113/pub/pc0588.pdf.
[23] Data Protection Act 1998, c. 42 (U.K.), https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents.
[24] European Convention on Human Rights, art. 8, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221, https://fra.europa.eu/en/law-reference/european-convention-human-rights-article-8-0.
[25] C. civ. art. 9 (Fr.), https://french-business-law.com/french-legislation-art/article-9-of-the-french-civil-code/.
- pén. art. 226-1 (Fr.), https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000049312755.
[26] The Right to Privacy—A Fundamental Right in Search of Its Identity: Uncovering the CJEU’s Flawed Concept of the Right to Privacy, 20 German L.J. 722 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2019.57.
