Why this matters now:

Courts in India are increasingly asked to stop the unauthorised use of a person’s name, face, voice, or other unique traits—especially through artificial-intelligence “deepfakes”, fake endorsements, and click-bait merchandise. In recent months, the Delhi High Court has passed urgent orders for film actors and public figures to take down fake or unauthorised content online and to block websites that trade on their identity. These cases build on earlier decisions that recognised a “right of publicity” or “personality rights” for well-known individuals. 

First, what are “personality rights”? 

• Identity: The legally protected value in who you are—your name, image, face, voice, signature moves or phrases, even a distinctive style—when others try to use it for commercial gain without permission. Indian courts often call this the right of publicity or personality rights. In a well-known 2012 Delhi High Court case involving a jewellery brand and the use of well-known actors’ photographs, the court recognised that famous people control the commercial use of their identity.
  
• Privacy and dignity: The Supreme Court’s nine-judge decision on the right to privacy placed personal autonomy and control over one’s own information on a constitutional footing. This constitutional backdrop strengthens court protection when unauthorised use of identity also invades privacy or dignity.
  
• Passing off and unfair trade: Even when there is no registered trade mark, a court can stop misleading use of a person’s name or likeness if it confuses the public into thinking that the person endorsed or is linked to a product or service. Courts have applied this principle in India to protect famous individuals against deceptive commercial use.
  
• Freedom of speech and art: Courts must balance personality rights against free expression—for example in news reporting, satire, film and biography. That is why each case turns on context: who used what, how, and why.
  

How have Indian courts protected these rights?

Early signals from trade and advertising disputes

• The jewellery advertisement case (2012): The Delhi High Court restrained a jeweller from using well-known actors’ photographs in an advertisement without consent, describing “misappropriation of personality rights” alongside copyright and passing-off claims. It affirmed that a celebrity can control how their identity is used in commerce.
  
• The restaurant name dispute (2017–2018): In a widely discussed set of orders involving a cricketer’s name used by a restaurant, courts examined whether using a famous name (even when the proprietor had the same personal name) could mislead the public into believing an endorsement existed. This line of cases shows how confusion and false association drive judicial relief.
  
• The Rajinikanth title case (2014–2015): The Madras High Court restrained the use of the title “Main Hoon Rajinikanth”, marking an early South Indian case recognising the strength of a unique name as identity.

Strong interim protection in the digital era

• Amitabh Bachchan order (2022): The Delhi High Court passed an omnibus interim order to stop misuse of the actor’s name, voice, image and likeness across goods and services—including against unknown future offenders—recognising his personality rights.
  
• Anil Kapoor and artificial-intelligence deepfakes (2023–2024): The Delhi High Court granted wide protection against deepfakes, fake merchandise, paid “courses”, ringtones, and false endorsements, and directed takedown and blocking where necessary. The court stressed that artificial-intelligence tools cannot justify identity theft.
  
• Abhishek Bachchan order (2025): The Delhi High Court banned websites from using his name and artificial-intelligence images without consent and ordered removal of unlawful content—another strong step against unauthorised digital exploitation.
  

What these decisions add up to: Indian courts are ready to grant quick interim relief—blocking orders, takedowns, and injunctions—when there is clear commercial misuse or harm to dignity. Over time, these orders have created a practical shield even though India does not yet have a single, dedicated “personality rights” statute.

What legal tools do courts rely on?

• Constitutional privacy and dignity: The Supreme Court’s 2017 privacy decision recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21. This anchors claims where misuse of a person’s identity affects autonomy, decisional privacy, and reputation.
  
• Copyright and related rights: Photographs, audio and video are protected by copyright. Using a celebrity’s photo from an old campaign to push a new product without permission can be copyright infringement and also a personality-rights violation. Courts have relied on both together (for example, the jewellery advertisement case).
  
• Passing off and unfair competition: When a trader rides on a person’s fame to sell products or services, courts use the tort of passing off to stop false endorsement and misrepresentation.
  
• Consumer protection against false endorsements: The Central Consumer Protection Authority has guidelines on misleading advertisements (2022). Endorsers can face penalties or even a temporary ban from making endorsements if the advertisement is misleading and due diligence was not done. This is an adjacent but important tool that shapes behaviour in the advertising market.
  
• Information-technology takedown rules: The Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code Rules, 2021 require online platforms to act on user complaints and remove unlawful content within set timelines. The government has also issued deepfake advisories telling platforms to make extra efforts to detect, label and remove manipulated, impersonating content. Courts rely on these duties to make takedown and blocking orders work in practice.
  
• Personal-data protection: The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 recognises that a person’s image, voice and other personal data should be processed with free, informed consent and with safeguards. While many parts depend on detailed rules and government notifications, the law strengthens the overall expectation of consent-based use of personal data.
  

How do courts balance personality rights with free speech?

Courts distinguish between commercial exploitation and speech in the public interest.

• Protected zones:
  
  • News reporting and criticism—using a public figure’s name or image to report news, comment, or review is part of free speech, so long as it is fair and not misleading.
    
  • Satire and parody—generally protected, but not when it confuses viewers about real endorsement or becomes a cover for defamation or obscenity.
    
• Restricted zones:
  
  • Fake endorsements and unauthorised advertisements using a person’s identity to sell a product.
    
  • Artificial-intelligence deepfakes that depict a person doing or saying something they never did, especially when used to sell or deceive. Courts have treated these as serious harms that justify quick blocking.
    

This is not unique to India. For context, United States courts developed the modern right of publicity decades ago, not only for names and photos but also for distinctive voice and persona—as in the Bette Midler case (voice imitation) and the Vanna White case (a robot evoking her show persona). Indian judges are aware of this comparative history. 

What counts as “use of identity” today? 

• Name and image on products or websites: Selling shirts, posters, ringtones, or digital artworks using a star’s photo or catchphrase without permission. Courts have ordered takedowns and domain blocks in such cases.
  
• Fake endorsements: Using a public figure’s name or past photo shoots to claim they recommend a product—classic passing off.
  
• Artificial-intelligence deepfakes: Videos or images that look and sound real but are manufactured. Courts have held these cross the line when they deceive, demean, or commercially exploit.
  
• Misleading domain names and apps: Sites or apps using the person’s name to draw traffic or collect money. Courts have restrained these and directed search and hosting providers to cooperate.
  
• Deceptive “fan” pages: A fan page becomes unlawful when it collects money, sells goods, or impersonates the person, especially if it posts obscene or defamatory content or harvests users’ data without consent. The intermediary rules and deepfake advisories help courts make platforms act.
  

How a harmed person can act 

If you are the person harmed (celebrity or otherwise):

1. Collect evidence quickly (screenshots, links, time-stamps, where it is hosted).
   
2. Send notices to the platform and the site owner citing impersonation, privacy, copyright, and consumer deception.
   
3. Move court for an interim injunction; ask for:
   
   • immediate takedown and blocking,
     
   • orders to domain registrars, internet providers, search engines, and payment gateways to stop support,
     
   • disclosure of the wrongdoer’s details if required, and
     
   • preservation of evidence.
     Courts have granted such reliefs in recent Delhi High Court cases involving artificial-intelligence misuse.
     
4. File follow-up claims for damages and a permanent injunction.
   

If you are a platform or advertiser:

• Build clear terms of service against impersonation and deepfakes; label synthetic content; act within the timelines required by the rules and advisories; keep a grievance officer reachable. Non-compliance risks loss of safe-harbour protection and adverse court orders.
  
• For endorsements, follow consumer-protection guidelines: verify claims, keep due-diligence records, and ensure clear disclosures by influence’s.
  

Where the law is still evolving

• No single statute yet: India protects personality rights through court-made law (privacy, passing off, copyright) plus sector rules (consumer protection, information-technology). Many experts support a specific statute that defines rights, fair uses (news, research, parody), and fast procedures for deepfake harm, while respecting free speech. (Policy debate continues.)
  
• Artificial-intelligence risk keeps rising: The government has issued deepfake advisories under information-technology rules, but courts still carry the main burden through case-by-case orders. Implementation will rely on fast platform response, traceability, and cross-border cooperation.
  
• Data-protection roll-out: The data-protection law recognises consent and individual control over personal data. As detailed rules and notifications take effect, expect more consent-based arguments in identity misuse cases.
  
• Guarding free expression: Courts will keep drawing lines between art and advertising. Comparative cases from the United States show how identity can be evoked (a robot suggesting a game-show host; a “sound-alike” voice) and still trigger liability. Indian courts are likely to keep this context-specific approach.
  

What a sensible policy roadmap looks like

1. Codify personality rights in a simple law: define rights; list fair uses; set clear tests for harm, fast takedown and appeal; protect art and public interest speech.
   
2. Platform due diligence with timelines: Keep the existing information-technology rules but add specific deadlines for identity-based harm; require labelling of synthetic content and easy user tools to report deepfakes.
   
3. Data-protection alignment: Treat image and voice as sensitive personal data and require clear consent for commercial use; mandate privacy-by-design for generative tools.
   
4. Advertising clean-up: Enforce consumer-protection due diligence for all endorsements; publish public warnings and blacklists for repeat offenders in fake celebrity ads.
   
5. Digital literacy and quick help: Public helplines, standard notice templates, and training for police and prosecutors to handle deepfake evidence and cross-border takedowns.
   

Exam hook 

Key takeaways 

1. Indian courts recognise and protect personality rights even without a single statute, drawing on privacy, passing off, and copyright.
   
2. Recent Delhi High Court orders have blocked websites and removed artificial-intelligence deepfakes, showing a strong remedial toolkit.
   
3. The jewellery advertisement case (2012) and the Rajinikanth title case laid the early path; the Amitabh Bachchan and Anil Kapoor matters widened protection in the digital era.
   
4. Platforms have legal duties under information-technology rules and deepfake advisories to remove unlawful impersonation promptly.
   
5. Consumer-protection guidelines now make celebrity endorsers answerable for misleading ads, nudging the market towards responsible endorsements.
   
6. A simple statute, clear platform timelines, consent-based data use, and digital literacy can turn scattered rules into a coherent shield.
   

UPSC Mains question 

“Personality rights are where privacy, property and free speech meet.”
Explain how Indian courts protect the identity of individuals in the digital age. Discuss the role of privacy, copyright, passing off and consumer-protection law in recent cases on artificial-intelligence deepfakes and fake endorsements. What reforms—statutory recognition, platform due diligence, data-protection alignment, and fast remedies—would you propose to balance dignity with freedom of expression? (250 words)

One-line wrap

India’s courts are building a fast, practical shield for a person’s identity—now the law must join the dots so dignity, creativity and open speech can thrive together.