UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2, Issues relating to development and management of Social Sector/Services relating to Health, Education, Human Resources. Protecting Personality Rights in India.
Introduction
The rise of artificial intelligence, deepfakes, and digital platforms has exposed new vulnerabilities for celebrities and ordinary citizens alike. Indian courts have stepped in to protect the dignity and autonomy of individuals against unauthorised commercial exploitation of their image, voice, and persona. Recent Delhi and Bombay High Court rulings in favour of actors Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, Jackie Shroff, Anil Kapoor, and singer Arijit Singh underline the urgency of codifying personality rights. These interventions highlight both progress and gaps in safeguarding personal identity in the digital era.
Gains from Judicial Protection of Personality Rights
- Scale and outcomes: Since the seminal 1994 Auto Shankar case (R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu), courts have linked personality rights to the constitutional right to privacy under Article 21. Successive judgments have restrained misuse of celebrity identity, granting injunctions and damages.
- Programme breadth and legal control: Statutory tools like the Copyright Act, 1957 (Sections 38A and 38B) grant performers exclusive and moral rights, while the Trade Marks Act, 1999 enables registration of names, signatures, or catchphrases. Celebrities such as Shah Rukh Khan and Priyanka Chopra have trademarked their names.
- AI-era adaptations: Courts have extended protection to novel risks like voice cloning, deepfakes, and morphing. In Anil Kapoor v. 16 Online Entities (2023), wide-ranging protections were issued against misuse of his persona. Similarly, the Bombay High Court in 2024 recognised Arijit Singh’s rights against AI-generated replicas of his voice.
- Recognition of autonomy and dignity: At the heart of judicial rulings lies the protection of personal autonomy. Courts have reiterated that unauthorised commercial use of identity strips away dignity and dilutes brand value painstakingly built over years.
Key Judicial Initiatives
- Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994): Recognised right to control identity use as part of privacy.
- Rajinikanth case (2014): Held that infringement arises if the celebrity is readily identifiable, regardless of falsity or confusion.
- DM Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2010): Protected singer Daler Mehndi’s persona, while cautioning against overreach that stifles parody and satire.
- Anil Kapoor (2023), Jackie Shroff (2024), Arijit Singh (2024): Set modern precedents against deepfakes, AI misuse, and online impersonation.
- Digital Collectibles v. Galactus Funware (2023): Affirmed that satire, parody, and academic use of celebrity images remain legitimate free expression under Article 19(1)(a).
Personality Rights in India: Judicial vs Legislative Protection
| Aspect | Pros | Cons |
| Judicial Protection | Flexible and adaptive to new threats like AI deepfakes, voice cloning (Arijit Singh case, 2024). Quick relief via injunctions and takedowns. Builds evolving jurisprudence rooted in Article 21 (privacy) and Article 19(1)(a) (free speech). | Fragmented and inconsistent across High Courts. Relies on precedents; no uniform definition of rights. Delays in enforcement as misuse spreads online rapidly. Risk of judicial overreach without clear statutory limits. |
| Legislative Codification | Provides uniform framework and clarity for citizens and courts. Clearly defines scope of rights and exceptions (parody, satire, academic use). Enables proactive regulation of AI-generated misuse. Stronger enforcement via statutory penalties. | Risk of overbroad law leading to censorship of satire and creative expression. May privilege celebrity protection over ordinary citizens. Implementation challenges given vast online content. Requires frequent updates to keep pace with tech. |
| Impact on Citizens | Judicial rulings extend privacy safeguards beyond celebrities. Courts have recognised protection against revenge porn, deepfakes, and online impersonation. | Access to courts costly and time-consuming for ordinary citizens. Ad hoc remedies may not be accessible in every case. |
| Impact on Industry & Media | Courts allow space for parody, satire, art, and scholarship (DM Entertainment case, 2010; Digital Collectibles case, 2023). | Uncertainty over permissible use deters media, advertisers, and content creators from innovation. Risk of self-censorship without statutory clarity. |
Lessons from Judicial Protection of Personality Rights
- Mission-mode relief works at scale: Injunctions and takedown orders protect celebrities quickly from reputational and financial harm.
- Technology-sensitive jurisprudence evolves: Courts have proactively extended protection to cover AI-based impersonation and online misuse, setting global benchmarks.
- Balance with free speech is crucial: Courts have repeatedly drawn lines between legitimate criticism, parody, and unlawful commercial exploitation.
- Publicity rights as economic assets: Judicial recognition strengthens the idea that a celebrity’s persona is a commercial asset deserving of legal protection.
- Privacy rights for all: Though celebrity cases dominate headlines, principles established equally safeguard ordinary citizens, particularly against deepfakes, revenge porn, and cyber harassment.
Challenges Remain
- Fragmented legal regime: No single statute codifies personality rights, forcing reliance on piecemeal precedents.
- Risk of censorship: Expansive interpretation may stifle satire, parody, and creative expression, chilling free speech.
- Technology outpacing law: AI-generated content spreads faster than courts or regulators can respond.
- Disproportionate impact on women: Deepfakes and revenge pornography often target women, highlighting gendered vulnerabilities.
- Enforcement difficulties: Tracking misuse across thousands of URLs and platforms remains a herculean task.
Conclusion
India stands at a crossroads in protecting personality rights. Judicial activism has laid a strong foundation, but a comprehensive legislative framework is essential to harmonise privacy, dignity, and free expression. Codifying exceptions for satire, parody, and academic use while criminalising malicious misuse will strike a fair balance. Protecting identity in the age of AI is not just about celebrities—it is about safeguarding the autonomy and dignity of every citizen.
Question for Practice:
Critically analyse the evolution of personality rights in India. How can the law balance protection of dignity and privacy with the constitutional guarantee of free expression?
Source: The Hindu
