Why in news?
Several recent court cases – including Anil Kapoor’s suit to stop AI‑generated misuse of his image and Jackie Shroff’s case against unauthorised memes – have brought personality rights into the limelight. Rising deepfakes and celebrity likeness exploitation have exposed gaps in India’s legal framework.
What are personality rights?
- Personality rights protect a person’s name, image, likeness and voice from unauthorised commercial exploitation. They stem from the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- India has no dedicated statute. Protection is pieced together through the Copyright Act 1957 (control over photographs and recordings), the Trade Marks Act 1999 (registration of names) and the common‑law tort of passing off which prevents false endorsement.
Judicial evolution
- R. Rajagopal vs State of Tamil Nadu (1994): The Supreme Court recognised a citizen’s right to privacy, paving the way for personality rights.
- Rajinikanth case (2014): The Madras High Court restrained the unauthorised use of the actor’s name and style to promote a film, recognising the right to control commercial use of one’s persona.
- Anil Kapoor vs Various Entities (2023): Delhi High Court granted interim relief against AI‑generated clips that used Kapoor’s catchphrases and gestures without consent.
- Jackie Shroff case (2024): The actor sought a permanent injunction against the sale of merchandise and memes using his likeness. The court held that personality rights exist independently of trademark registration.
- Arijit Singh vs Codible Ventures (2024): The singer moved court over a service that allowed users to generate songs mimicking his voice, highlighting the risks of voice cloning.
Challenges in the digital age
- Artificial intelligence and deepfake technology make it easy to recreate faces and voices, leading to misuse, reputational harm and fraud.
- Lack of a clear statutory framework leads to inconsistent rulings. Different courts apply personality rights in diverse ways, leaving celebrities and ordinary people unsure of their remedies.
- Balancing personality rights with freedom of expression is tricky. News reporting, parody and artistic works require exceptions, otherwise heavy‑handed restrictions could chill free speech.
- Women and marginalised communities are particularly vulnerable to image‑based abuse and deepfake pornography.
Way forward
- Enact a comprehensive personality rights law defining what constitutes misappropriation, providing clear civil and criminal remedies and laying down fair‑use exceptions.
- Update the Information Technology Act to regulate AI‑generated content and require platforms to remove deepfakes promptly.
- Create awareness among celebrities, influencers and ordinary citizens about registering trademarks for names and images and using existing legal remedies.
- Ensure gender‑sensitive protections and accessible grievance redressal mechanisms for victims of image‑based abuse.
Conclusion
Protecting personality rights is increasingly important in the age of AI. A balanced, well‑defined framework can safeguard individual dignity while preserving free expression and creative innovation.