Personality Rights

The Delhi High Court's Orders on Personality Rights: A New Frontier for Privacy and IP Law

On September 25, 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a landmark order protecting Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan's "name, image, and voice" from unauthorized commercial use. The injunction was broad, addressing not just blatant misuse in advertisements but even indirect exploitation through merchandise and deepfake videos. This decision highlights the increasing judicial acknowledgment of personality rights in India, a domain straddling intellectual property and privacy law—yet one still peripheral to statutory clarity.

The Policy Instrument: Tracing Personality Rights to Privacy

Personality rights stem from Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which enshrines the right to privacy. While Indian laws—including the Trade Marks Act, 1999—do not explicitly legislate personality rights, courts have interpreted them through principles like 'passing off' and trademark infringement. For instance, leveraging a celebrity's voice or image to imitate their endorsement is seen as deception, a principle rooted in common law frameworks inherited from Britain.

The High Court’s proactive orders signal adaptability to contemporary challenges, such as AI-generated content, which can replicate entire aspects of a personality without consent. In absence of specific legislation, courts have relied heavily on equitable principles to control digital misuse—a domain poorly addressed in traditional intellectual property protections.

The Case For Recognizing Personality Rights

From a commercial standpoint, personality rights act as an essential safeguard for celebrities who derive income from their endorsement value. In India, the advertising industry is valued at approximately ₹82,000 crores, and celebrity-led endorsements account for nearly 60% of television advertisements according to Kantar, a leading market research firm. This underscores why exclusivity in branding—whether through registered poses like Usain Bolt's trademark "lightning pose" or Shah Rukh Khan's distinctive "open arms gesture"—matters.

Moreover, securing judicial recognition deters exploitative practices arising from technological advancements. For instance, AI tools that generate fake product endorsements using manipulated celebrity images or voices without their consent directly undermine their market valuation and violate their right to privacy. The Delhi and Bombay High Courts' injunctions blocking such usages signal India's readiness to confront the murky intersections of AI, privacy, and intellectual property.

International precedents bolster this case. In the United States, personality rights—codified as "publicity rights"—are enforceable under state laws like California Civil Code §3344. These rights allow celebrities to claim damages for unauthorized commercial use, including hefty penalties. For instance, basketball star Michael Jordan won $8.9 million in 2015 in a case against a supermarket chain using his name without consent. India has no similar statutory safeguard. Thus, judicial activism becomes essential to plug this legislative vacuum.

The Case Against Expanding Personality Rights

Despite the benefits, institutional and conceptual weaknesses abound. First, the principle of personality rights is diametrically opposed to provisions safeguarding free speech and artistic expression under Article 19(1)(a). When courts grant broad injunctions, it risks muting satirical or creative depictions of celebrities—a space where public figures must tolerate some degree of scrutiny or imitation.

Second, the lack of legislative anchoring creates ambiguity. What qualifies as actionable misuse? For instance, deepfake technology could blur the line between fair use and exploitation, complicating enforcement. Indeed, there are no guidelines analogous to GDPR provisions for data privacy in Europe that regulate AI-based content replication. Is every evocative hint of a celebrity persona—like a voice impression—equally culpable? The judicial reliance on subjective rulings creates uneven precedents.

Lastly, enforcement remains patchy. While metropolitan courts like Delhi and Mumbai are proactive, smaller districts lack institutional capacity to address nuanced privacy breaches. Celebrities with financial resources can engage expensive litigation; the larger population—including influencers whose commercial personas are also vulnerable—may find these mechanisms out of reach entirely.

What Other Democracies Did: Lessons from the United States

The United States offers a contrasting model of clarity and enforcement. Publicity rights, first articulated in Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. (1953), explicitly recognize a person’s control over their "name, image, and likeness." Moreover, statutory penalties provide consistent deterrence: California penalizes violations with damages and fines, scaling up accountability against repeat offenders.

However, the American model also balances protection with free speech exceptions. Parodies, satires, and journalistic works involving celebrity personas are protected under the First Amendment, subject to fair use limitations. India’s lack of codified exceptions creates risks—it legitimizes overreach that dampens public creativity and discourse.

Where Things Stand

The bottom line is clear: India’s judiciary is stepping up to fill legislative gaps, particularly in complex areas like AI misuse of personality traits. However, these interventions risk inconsistency and overreach without comprehensive statutes governing privacy and publicity. The need for codification couldn’t be more urgent—yet, given India's overburdened legislature, such reforms are unlikely to come rapidly.

Perhaps the ideal path forward is a dual approach: regulatory reforms to define permissible limits for use and misuse of celebrity personas and capacity-building within the judiciary for dealing with AI-enabled privacy breaches. The irony, however, lies in the gap between judicial intent and practical execution—without institutional clarity, the enforcement of personality rights may remain aspirational.

UPSC Integration

• Prelims Question 1: Which constitutional article primarily supports the judicial recognition of personality rights in India?
  a) Article 14
  b) Article 19
  c) Article 21
  d) Article 32
  Correct Answer: c) Article 21
• Prelims Question 2: In which state is public recognition of "publicity rights" codified under law in the United States?
  a) New York
  b) California
  c) Texas
  d) Washington
  Correct Answer: b) California

Mains Question: Critically evaluate whether judicial interventions alone can adequately protect personality rights in India, given the absence of comprehensive legislation to address emerging challenges like AI-generated misuse.

Practice Questions for UPSC

Prelims Practice Questions

Frequently Asked Questions