Introduction: Concept and Evolution of Personality Rights
Personality rights—often referred to as the right of publicity—grant individuals control over the commercial use of their identity, including their name, image, likeness, voice, signature, or other distinctive personal attributes. These rights protect individuals from unauthorized exploitation of their persona for commercial gain. Historically, personality rights emerged at the intersection of privacy and property rights. Legal systems have grappled with whether to treat a person’s identity as a facet of personal dignity (and privacy) or as an economic asset akin to intellectual property.
Globally, two strands of personality rights are recognized: (1) the publicity right – the right to keep one’s persona from commercial exploitation without consent (similar to a trademark in one’s identity); and (2) the privacy right – the right to be left alone and not have one’s persona publicly represented without permission.
In many jurisdictions, especially common law countries, publicity rights grew out of the tort of passing off or misappropriation. Early 20th-century U.S. courts, for instance, began recognizing a transferable right to one’s public image (notably in Haelan Labs. v. Topps Chewing Gum1, which coined the term “right of publicity”). By contrast, civil law countries anchored personality rights in civil codes protecting image and dignity – for example, France’s Civil Code2 protects aspects of personality, though it permits use of public figures’ images for news or public interest purposes.
In India, personality rights have evolved without explicit statutory footing, derived instead from constitutional principles and common-law precedent. Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and personal liberty) has been interpreted to encompass the right to livelihood and dignity, which courts have sometimes invoked to ground personality rights. Simultaneously, Indian courts have drawn from common law IP doctrines (trademark and passing off) to protect famous personalities’ goodwill from misappropriation. This dual influence – privacy (a constitutional right) and publicity (a commercial common-law right) – has shaped an evolving, and at times inconsistent, jurisprudence on personality rights in India.
Scope of Personality Rights
As mentioned above, Personality rights primarily comprise two distinct yet interrelated aspects: the right to publicity and the right to privacy. These rights collectively aim to protect individuals from the unauthorized commercial exploitation of their persona while also ensuring that their private life remains safeguarded against unwarranted intrusions.
The right to publicity grants an individual exclusive control over the commercial use of their name, image, likeness, voice, signature, and other identifiable attributes. This right enables individuals, particularly public figures and celebrities, to commercially exploit their persona and derive financial benefit from endorsements, advertisements, and merchandise, while also preventing third parties from unlawfully capitalizing on their goodwill. The right to publicity ensures that any commercial usage of a person’s identity occurs solely with their consent, thereby preventing misrepresentation, unauthorized endorsements, and unjust enrichment at the expense of the rightful owner of the persona. Indian courts have consistently upheld this right, emphasizing that a person should have the ability to dictate the manner in which their image or likeness is used, particularly in commercial contexts.
Conversely, the right to privacy serves as a shield against the unauthorized intrusion into an individual’s personal affairs, including the dissemination of private information without consent. This right extends to both public figures and private individuals, ensuring that personal details, private conversations, and sensitive personal attributes are not improperly disclosed or exploited. Even in cases where an individual has a public presence, their private life remains entitled to protection from media interference, surveillance, or commercial exploitation without authorization. The Supreme Court of India, in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India3, reaffirmed that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which inherently includes protection against the misuse of one’s identity for unauthorized commercial or media purposes.
While the right to publicity primarily operates as a commercial safeguard, ensuring that individuals retain control over the economic value of their persona, the right to privacy functions as a personal safeguard, preventing undue invasions into one’s private life. The co-existence of these rights is essential to maintaining a balance between personal autonomy and commercial interests, ensuring that individuals can both benefit from their persona while simultaneously being shielded from misuse. In the absence of specific legislation, the enforcement of personality rights in India continues to rely on judicial interpretations and legal precedents, underscoring the need for a well-defined statutory framework to address emerging challenges in the evolving digital and technological landscape.
Legal Framework Governing Personality Rights in India
In India, personality rights do not find explicit codification under a singular statutory enactment. However, their protection and enforcement have been established through judicial pronouncements and the application of various existing legal provisions under constitutional law, intellectual property law, and common law principles. The judiciary has played a pivotal role in recognizing and developing the framework governing personality rights, ensuring that individuals, particularly public figures, have recourse against unauthorized commercial exploitation of their identity.
At the constitutional level, personality rights are considered an extension of the right to privacy, which is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court, in the landmark judgment of K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India4, reaffirmed that an individual has the inherent right to control the commercial use of their name, image, and likeness. The Court emphasized that such rights extend to preventing unauthorized exploitation and misappropriation of personal attributes for commercial gain. The recognition of personality rights under the right to privacy ensures that individuals retain autonomy over their persona and prevents unwarranted intrusions that may compromise their dignity and reputation.
In addition to constitutional protection, the Copyright Act, 1957, under Sections 38, 38A, and 38B, grants performers exclusive and moral rights over their performances, which indirectly extends to safeguarding their personality rights. These statutory provisions provide performers with the authority to control the use, reproduction, and dissemination of their performances and prevent unauthorized commercial exploitation. Such protections reinforce the principle that an individual's creative or performative expressions are integral to their persona and, therefore, must be safeguarded against misuse.
Further, the Trade Marks Act, 1999, under Section 14, restricts the use of a celebrity’s name or representation without prior consent. Given the increasing commercial value associated with celebrity personas, many public figures seek trademark registration of their names, images, and even distinctive phrases to preclude unauthorized usage. The Act provides a mechanism for preventing commercial entities from unlawfully capitalizing on the goodwill and reputation of celebrities through deceptive branding, false endorsements, or misleading associations.
Apart from statutory protections, Indian courts have also recognized the tort of "passing off" as a legal remedy for protecting personality rights. Passing off serves as a common law safeguard against unauthorized commercial exploitation, particularly in instances where a person’s identity is misused for advertisements, endorsements, or promotional activities without their authorization. Courts have consistently held that when an individual’s name, likeness, or image is used in a manner that falsely suggests association, endorsement, or sponsorship, such acts amount to misrepresentation and unjust enrichment at the expense of the rightful owner of the persona.
Thus, while India lacks a dedicated statute governing personality right, the interplay of constitutional protections, statutory enactments, and common law doctrines provides a comprehensive yet evolving legal framework. Given the complexities surrounding personality rights, particularly in the digital era with the emergence of deepfakes, AI-generated impersonations, and unauthorized online commercial exploitation, there remains an urgent need for a structured legislative approach to address these contemporary challenges effectively. Until such codification takes place, judicial pronouncements and statutory provisions will continue to play a crucial role in delineating and enforcing personality rights within the Indian legal landscape.
Judicial Evolution of Personality Rights in India: From Privacy to Publicity
In the absence of a dedicated statutory framework governing personality rights in India, the judiciary has played a crucial role in recognizing and developing the doctrine. Through various rulings, the Supreme Court of India and several High Courts have established a structured legal framework aimed at safeguarding individuals—particularly public figures—from unauthorized commercial exploitation of their identity. Judicial precedents have progressively shaped personality rights, balancing the right to privacy and dignity with the right to publicity and commercial control over one’s persona.
Judicial Precedents on Personality Rights
Indian courts have played a pivotal role in developing the legal framework for personality rights, addressing the complexities arising from unauthorized commercial exploitation of an individual’s identity. Through a series of landmark judgments, courts have reinforced the protection of both the right to privacy and the right to publicity, ensuring that individuals retain control over their persona while also safeguarding their autonomy. The jurisprudence surrounding personality rights has evolved through various judicial pronouncements, which have collectively shaped the contours of this legal doctrine.
The Supreme Court of India, in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu 5, explicitly recognized the right to privacy, holding that an individual’s private matters cannot be published without their consent unless such information is already part of the public record. This judgment laid a foundational precedent, establishing that privacy and dignity are integral to personal autonomy. The ruling reinforced the notion that an individual’s identity, including their name, image, and personal attributes, cannot be commercially misappropriated without their explicit consent. By drawing a distinction between the public interest and an individual’s right to privacy, the Supreme Court set a crucial standard for future cases concerning personality rights.
In Titan Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Ramkumar Jewellers6, the Delhi High Court underscored the importance of protecting celebrities’ identities from unauthorized commercial exploitation. The court held that the right to publicity is a personal and exclusive right vested in individuals, particularly celebrities, who have cultivated a public persona. The judgment stressed that celebrities have the right to control how, when, and under what conditions their persona is commercially exploited, thereby reinforcing their control over their public image. This case further established that any unauthorized use of a celebrity’s name, image, or likeness for commercial purposes constitutes a violation of their personality rights.
Similarly, in Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi7, the Delhi High Court passed an omnibus order protecting the personality rights of Mr. Amitabh Bachchan and restraining the unauthorized use of Amitabh Bachchan’s name, voice, and image. This ruling reaffirmed that individuals possess the right to control the commercial use of their identity and that any unauthorized appropriation of a public figure’s persona amounts to unjust enrichment at the expense of the individual’s goodwill and reputation. The court emphasized that misappropriation of a celebrity’s identity for commercial gain without their consent constitutes a violation of their economic and dignitary interests, warranting judicial intervention.
The Delhi High Court further expanded the scope of personality rights in Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India8, where the Bollywood actor filed a suit against multiple entities for the unauthorized use of his name, image, catchphrases (such as his iconic “Jhakaas”), and the manipulation of his likeness in digitally altered videos. The court granted an extensive interim injunction, prohibiting the circulation of deepfake videos that falsely depicted him in objectionable content and restraining the sale of merchandise such as T-shirts, mugs, stickers, and keychains bearing his image. The ruling reinforced the principle that celebrities have an inherent right to control the commercial use of their persona, thereby preventing third parties from capitalizing on their fame without consent. The court further observed that unauthorized commercial use of a celebrity’s identity—including their image, name, catchphrases, and digitally manipulated videos—violates fundamental rights, particularly those related to livelihood, privacy, and dignity. The judgment underscored the fact that misuse of a public figure’s persona can cause reputational harm and economic loss, necessitating strong judicial intervention to prevent such unauthorized exploitation.
Similarly, in Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors9, The Hon’ble Delhi High Court reinforced the protection of personality rights by granting injunctive relief against the unauthorized use of Jackie Shroff’s name, image, voice, likeness, and trademarks (“Bhidu” and “Bhidu Ka Khopcha”). The Court found that multiple defendants, including online retailers, meme creators, AI chatbot operators, and content platforms, were commercially misappropriating his persona without consent. Several e-commerce websites were found to be selling merchandise featuring his image and name, while an AI chatbot mimicked his speech and catchphrases. Certain videos altered his image using deepfake technology and added profane content, harming his reputation. The Court also ordered government agencies to block URLs that falsely associated Jackie Shroff’s name with pornographic material, recognizing that such misuse damages a public figure’s dignity and goodwill. However, in the case of a YouTube mash-up video, the Court declined an ex-parte injunction, observing that parody and memes, if not defamatory or misleading, may not always constitute a violation of personality rights. While granting injunctions against commercial exploitation and AI-driven impersonations, the Court balanced personality rights with freedom of expression, noting that not all artistic or humorous references to a public figure amount to infringement. The ruling highlights the increasing risks posed by digital impersonation, deepfake technology, and AI-generated content, while also emphasizing that judicial intervention should not suppress legitimate creative expression.
The evolving jurisprudence surrounding personality rights in India reflects a growing judicial recognition of the need to protect individuals—particularly public figures—from unauthorized commercial exploitation. Courts have consistently reinforced that personality rights encompass both the right to privacy and the right to publicity, thereby ensuring that individuals retain control over their persona while also preserving their autonomy. The Indian courts (Re: Jackie Shroff case) are attempting to strike a critical judicial balance, ensuring that personality rights do not become an overbroad mechanism for stifling free expression. While unauthorized commercial use of a celebrity’s identity is strictly prohibited, non-commercial creative works, parodies, and satirical content must be evaluated contextually to determine whether they warrant judicial intervention.
It is to be noted that while judicial precedents have laid a strong foundation, the absence of clear legislation results in ambiguities regarding enforcement, limitations, and exceptions to personality rights. Moving forward, India must work toward enacting a dedicated statutory framework that balances the protection of personality rights with fundamental freedoms, ensuring clarity, enforceability, and equitable protection for all individuals.
Challenges in the Enforcement and Regulation of Personality Rights in India
The protection and enforcement of personality rights in India face significant challenges, particularly in light of rapid technological advancements such as AI-generated impersonations, deepfake technologies, and digital merchandising. The increasing commercialization of personal identity and the ease of digital replication have made it imperative to establish a dedicated statutory framework to regulate personality rights effectively. While judicial precedents have provided foundational principles, the absence of comprehensive legislation results in legal uncertainties, particularly regarding the scope, enforcement, and exceptions of personality rights. Courts have played a pivotal role in recognizing the right to privacy and publicity, but the evolving nature of digital misappropriation necessitates a structured legal approach that clearly defines permissible and impermissible uses of an individual’s persona while ensuring adequate remedies for violations.
One of the most pressing concerns in this domain is the impact of digital and AI technologies on personality rights. The proliferation of deepfake content, AI-generated voice clones, and unauthorized digital replicas has raised complex legal questions regarding ownership, consent, and misuse of personal identity. AI tools can now replicate an individual’s likeness with high precision, leading to potential reputational damage, identity theft, and financial exploitation. While courts have begun addressing these issues, such as in cases involving AI chatbots impersonating public figures, there is no clear legal framework governing the extent of liability, enforcement mechanisms, or remedies for such violations. The absence of codified statutory provisions leaves judges to rely on existing laws related to privacy, intellectual property, and misrepresentation, which may not fully address the challenges posed by digital impersonation and AI-driven exploitation.
Another significant challenge is the lack of a dedicated statute that provides clear legal recognition and enforceability of personality rights. In the absence of a specific law, courts have relied on constitutional rights, trademark law, copyright law, and common law doctrines to adjudicate disputes related to unauthorized commercial use of personal identity. However, judicial interpretations alone are insufficient to address the growing complexities of the digital era, particularly concerning posthumous personality rights, AI-generated impersonations, and online infringements. A statutory framework would eliminate ambiguity, establish definitive protections for individuals, and provide a clear mechanism for enforcement, deterrence, and compensation in cases of personality rights violations.
An equally important consideration in the enforcement of personality rights is the need to balance these rights with freedom of expression. Courts must carefully navigate conflicts between an individual’s right to control their persona and the public interest in free speech, creative expression, and satire. The Delhi High Court’s ruling in the Jackie Shroff case exemplifies this challenge, where the court granted injunctions against commercial exploitation but refused to impose restrictions on creative works such as parodies and transformative content. This demonstrates a critical judicial balancing act, ensuring that personality rights do not become an overbroad mechanism for censorship or suppression of legitimate artistic, satirical, or journalistic expression. The legal framework for personality rights must, therefore, define explicit exceptions for news reporting, creative adaptations, and non-commercial uses, ensuring that the enforcement of these rights does not infringe upon fundamental freedoms.
The enforcement of personality rights in India is currently undertaken through civil litigation, where affected individuals can seek injunctive relief and damages for unauthorized commercial exploitation of their persona. Courts have granted restrictive orders and monetary compensation in several cases, reinforcing that misappropriation of a person’s identity without consent constitutes a violation warranting legal action. However, enforcement remains a challenge, particularly in the digital space, where violators can operate anonymously and infringing content can spread rapidly across global online platforms. The jurisdictional complexities of the internet, combined with the lack of statutory penalties, create significant hurdles in deterring future violations. A well-defined legal framework must, therefore, include strong enforcement mechanisms, provide for penal consequences for repeat offenders, and establish effective cross-border cooperation for digital misappropriation cases.
Conclusion
As technology continues to evolve, personality rights in India remain at a critical turning point. Courts have consistently upheld that individuals—particularly public figures—must retain control over their persona to prevent unwarranted commercial exploitation, yet these protections must not come at the expense of artistic freedom or public discourse. The increasing complexities of the digital era necessitate a comprehensive statutory framework that provides clarity on legal protections, enforcement mechanisms, and liability for violations. While judicial precedents have been instrumental in shaping personality rights, a codified law would bring certainty, consistency, and stronger deterrence against infringements.
Going forward, India must work toward establishing a dedicated legislative framework that protects personality rights while maintaining a balance with constitutional freedoms. Such a framework should address digital misappropriation, AI-driven impersonations, posthumous publicity rights, and jurisdictional challenges in online enforcement. By adopting best practices from global legal systems, India can create a structured, enforceable, and forward-looking approach to personality rights, ensuring that individual autonomy, commercial identity, and creative freedoms are harmonized within a coherent legal regime.
Footnotes
1 (2d Cir. 1953)
2 (Art. 9)
3 (2017) 10 SCC 1
4 id
5 [1994] Supp. (4) S.C.R. 353
6 2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del)
7 [CS(COMM) 819/2022]
8 CS(COMM) 652/2023
9 CS(COMM) 389/2024
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
