[Answered] Critically analyze the reliance on piecemeal judicial precedents for personality rights. Examine the need for legislative intervention to create a robust and uniform legal framework for their enforcement.

Introduction

With India witnessing a surge in AI-driven deepfakes and celebrity image misuse, over 200 global cases highlight fragmented judicial enforcement of personality rights, underscoring the urgent need for comprehensive legislative codification.

What are Personality Rights?

1. Protect an individual’s name, image, voice, likeness, signature, catchphrases, and other unique traits from unauthorised commercial exploitation.
2. Rooted in:

• Article 21 (right to privacy, autonomy, dignity).
• IPR laws: Copyright Act (Sections 38A, 38B), Trade Marks Act (Section 14, 27).
• Common law tort of passing off.

Judicial Recognition in India (Piecemeal Evolution)

1. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994) – Supreme Court upheld right to control one’s identity under right to privacy.
2. DM Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2010) – Delhi HC recognised publicity rights of singer Daler Mehndi.
3. Rajinikanth case (2015) – Madras HC upheld protection against unauthorised commercial exploitation, even without proof of deception.
4. Anil Kapoor v. AI Entities (2023) – Delhi HC restrained use of his persona, catchphrases (“jhakaas”), clarified limits between satire and exploitation.
5. Jackie Shroff (2024), Arijit Singh (2024), Karan Johar (2025) – Courts granted injunctions against AI-generated misuse.

Issue: These rulings, though progressive, are case-specific, fragmented, inconsistent and depend heavily on judicial creativity.

Concerns with Reliance on Judicial Precedents

1. Fragmentation and Uncertainty: Absence of codified law forces courts to “invent remedies,” leading to inconsistent standards across jurisdictions.
2. Overbreadth vs. Free Expression: Expansive protection risks chilling satire, parody, art, scholarship. Courts (Digital Collectibles v. Galactus, 2023) warned against over-emphasis that may curtail Article 19(1)(a) rights.
3. Technological Challenges: AI deepfakes, voice cloning, revenge pornography create scalable misuse. Case-specific injunctions cannot keep pace with rapid digital replication.
4. Accessibility Issues: Ordinary citizens (especially women targeted by deepfakes, cyber harassment) lack similar legal recourse. Current protection perceived as celebrity-centric.

Global Practices

1. U.S.: Recognises “Right of Publicity” under state laws (California Civil Code §3344).
2. EU: GDPR ensures control over personal data and likeness.
3. U.K.: Protects personality rights under privacy + passing off doctrines, supplemented by statutory safeguards.

Need for Legislative Intervention

1. Codification of Personality Rights: A dedicated statute defining scope, duration, and exceptions. Inspired by EU’s GDPR and U.S. publicity rights.
2. Clear Exceptions: Safeguards for satire, parody, criticism, academic use to preserve free speech balance.
3. Special Protection for Vulnerable Groups: Extend beyond celebrities to address revenge porn, non-consensual deepfakes.
4. Institutional Mechanisms: Creation of a Digital Personality Rights Authority (DPRA) for monitoring and redressal. Fast-track takedown procedures for AI misuse.
5. Harmonisation with IPR and Data Protection Laws: Integrate with Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Align with Copyright and Trademark Acts to avoid overlap.

Conclusion

The law must be stable yet it cannot stand still; codifying personality rights will ensure certainty, protect dignity, and balance free expression in India’s digital democracy.