Delhi High Court Strengthens Celebrity Personality Rights
The Delhi High Court has recently reinforced protections for Bollywood celebrities against unauthorised commercial use of their personality traits. Recently, actors like Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, and filmmaker Karan Johar secured judicial relief against misuse of their images, voices, and likeness through AI-generated content and merchandise. This marks a growing judicial recognition of personality rights in the digital age.
About Personality Rights
Personality rights protect an individual’s name, image, voice, signature, and other unique features from unauthorised commercial use. India does not have a single statute for these rights. Instead, protection arises from privacy, defamation, and publicity rights under common law. Courts may issue injunctions, award damages, or order takedowns to prevent misuse in ads, merchandise, or AI content. Intellectual property laws such as the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999 also provide limited safeguards.
Legal Foundations and Key Judgments
The right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution supports personality rights. A landmark 1994 Supreme Court ruling in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu recognised control over personal identity, balancing privacy with free speech. Later, the Madras High Court upheld actor Rajinikanth’s claim against unauthorised use of his name and style, clarifying that proof of confusion or deception is unnecessary if the celebrity is identifiable.
Judicial Response to AI and Digital Threats
The rise of AI deepfakes and voice cloning has posed new challenges. Courts have provided wide-ranging protection to celebrities like Anil Kapoor and Jackie Shroff against AI misuse. The Bombay High Court ruled in favour of singer Arijit Singh, condemning unauthorised AI-generated voice recordings. Judges emphasise that commercial exploitation without consent harms dignity and brand value.
Balancing Personality Rights and Free Expression
While personality rights are vital, they must not stifle free speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Courts allow parody, satire, criticism, and artistic expression as legitimate uses. Cases like DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House and Digital Collectibles PTE Ltd. v. Galactus Funware Technology Pvt. Ltd. affirm that public domain material and non-commercial uses do not infringe rights. The judiciary seeks a middle path respecting both individual autonomy and creative freedom.
Challenges and Future Directions
Experts call for comprehensive legislation to avoid fragmented judicial responses. Clear exceptions are needed to protect artistic freedom and prevent censorship. Personality rights extend beyond celebrities, addressing issues like deepfake abuse and revenge pornography affecting ordinary citizens, particularly women. Enforcement remains complex due to the scale of digital misuse and the difficulty of tracking violations online.
| Related | |
|---|---|
