What is the issue?
- Delhi High Court recently protected Bollywood celebrities (Aishwarya Rai, Abhishek Bachchan, Karan Johar, Jackie Shroff, Arijit Singh) from unauthorised AI-generated use of their image, voice, likeness.
- Growing misuse of deepfakes, AI cloning, and unlicensed merchandise.
- Wider push for recognition of personality rights in India’s digital age.
Relevance
- GS II (Polity & Governance): Article 21 (privacy & dignity), Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of expression), judicial protection of individual rights.
- GS III (Science & Technology): AI, deepfakes, digital law, regulation of emerging technologies.
Concept of Personality Rights
- Protects an individual’s name, likeness, image, voice, signature, catchphrases, and persona from unauthorised commercial exploitation.
- Rooted in:
- Article 21 (right to privacy & dignity).
- Common law doctrines: privacy, defamation, publicity rights.
- IP laws:
- Copyright Act, 1957 (Sections 38A & 38B → performers’ rights & moral rights).
- Trade Marks Act, 1999 (names/signatures can be registered).
- Tort of passing off (Section 27, TM Act).
Judicial Evolution
- R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994): Right to control identity linked to privacy; prior restraint discouraged.
- Rajinikanth case (Madras HC, 2015): Unauthorised commercial use of name/style restrained.
- Anil Kapoor case (Delhi HC, 2023): Catchphrase “jhakaas” protected; parody allowed but not commercial exploitation.
- Jackie Shroff case (Delhi HC, 2024): E-commerce & AI chatbots barred from misusing persona.
- Arijit Singh case (Bombay HC, 2024): Voice cloning via AI recognised as infringement.
- DM Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2010): Daler Mehndi’s rights upheld; but satire/parody exempted.
- Digital Collectibles v. Galactus (2023): Reaffirmed that free speech (satire, art, news) cannot be curtailed.
Conflict with Free Expression
- Article 19(1)(a): Protects criticism, parody, satire, scholarship.
- Courts: Balance needed → protection valid against commercial exploitation, not genuine creative expression.
- Risk: Overbroad personality rights may chill free speech, censor creativity.
Contemporary Concerns
- AI & Deepfakes: New threats like voice cloning, AI-generated videos, fake endorsements.
- Fragmented legal protection: No single codified law; courts act case-by-case.
- Women & ordinary citizens: Increasing victims of deepfakes, revenge porn, impersonation.
- Enforcement challenge: Blocking URLs/reactive takedowns insufficient.
Expert Views
- Need for comprehensive legislative framework beyond piecemeal judgments.
- Clear exceptions must be defined (satire, art, parody) to avoid misuse as censorship.
- Protection not just for celebrities → extends to ordinary citizens’ privacy and dignity.
Broader Implications
- Digital Economy: Celebrities’ brand value linked to endorsements → misuse dilutes goodwill.
- Technology & Law: AI advances outpacing legal safeguards.
- Global Context: U.S. & EU have clearer publicity rights frameworks; India lags.
- Social Justice: Women more vulnerable to identity misuse in online spaces.
Way Forward
- Enact a dedicated Personality Rights & AI Misuse law.
- Mandate platform accountability (intermediary liability for deepfake/impersonation content).
- Introduce fast-track remedies: takedown within 24–48 hrs.
- Awareness & digital literacy to help individuals detect & report misuse.
- Balance: Protect dignity & commercial interests while preserving free speech.
Conclusion
- Personality rights in India are evolving through judicial precedents, but lack a codified framework.
- AI and digital manipulation have amplified risks of identity theft and misuse.
- A balanced legal architecture is essential — protecting individuals’ dignity and autonomy under Article 21, while ensuring freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a).
- Without legislative clarity, India risks sliding into fragmented, ad hoc enforcement.
