Personality Rights in India

Context:

The Delhi High Court has recently granted protection to Bollywood celebrities such as Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, and Karan Johar against unauthorised use of their images, voices, and AI-generated deepfakes, signalling a wider push for judicial recognition of personality rights in the digital era.

Judicial Recognition of Personality Rights in the Digital Age

Understanding Personality Rights

Definition: Personality rights protect an individual’s distinctive attributes such as name, image, likeness, voice, and signature from unauthorised commercial exploitation.
Constitutional Basis: Rooted in Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) ensuring dignity, privacy, and autonomy.
Legal Nature: Not codified in a single statute but derived from common law principles of privacy, defamation, and publicity rights.

Statutory Provisions Relating to Personality Rights

Copyright Act, 1957
- Section 38A: Exclusive rights of performers.
- Section 38B: Moral rights to prevent distortion or misuse of performance.
Trade Marks Act, 1999
- Allows registration of names, signatures, catchphrases.
- Celebrities like Amitabh Bachchan, Shah Rukh Khan, Priyanka Chopra have registered their names.
Passing Off under Section 27 of Trade Marks Act
- Protects unregistered marks and prevents misrepresentation suggesting false endorsement.

Key Judicial Precedents

Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994): Recognised right to privacy and autonomy over personal identity.
Rajinikanth Case (2015, Madras HC): Infringement exists if a celebrity is identifiable; proof of deception not necessary.
Anil Kapoor Case (2023, Delhi HC): Protection from AI misuse; clarified satire, parody, and criticism fall under free speech.
Jackie Shroff Case (2024, Delhi HC): Injunction against AI chatbots and e-commerce misuse.
Arijit Singh Case (2024, Bombay HC): Protection against voice cloning; flagged dangers of generative AI.

Personality Rights vs. Free Expression

Constitutional Safeguard: Article 19(1)(a) ensures free speech.
Judicial Balancing:
- DM Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2010) – Cautioned against overexpansion of personality rights at the cost of free expression.
- Digital Collectibles v. GalactusFunware (2023) – Satire, parody, criticism, art, and news reporting fall under legitimate free speech.

Emerging Concerns

AI and Deepfakes: Rise of generative AI tools misusing celebrity images, voices, and likeness.
Women and Ordinary Citizens: Increasing vulnerability to deepfakes, revenge pornography, and impersonation.
Fragmented Legal Framework: Current reliance on judicial precedents leads to inconsistent enforcement.
Enforcement Challenge: Difficulty in tracking and acting upon each instance of digital misuse.

Way Forward

Comprehensive Legislation: Enact a dedicated Personality Rights Act clarifying scope, exceptions, and enforcement.
Clear Exceptions: Explicit protection for satire, parody, academic use, and artistic expression.
Stronger Technological Safeguards: Collaboration with digital platforms to detect and take down impersonation content swiftly.
Gender-Sensitive Framework: Address disproportionate impact on women from deepfakes and online impersonation.
Awareness and Registration: Encourage individuals, especially public figures, to register personality attributes under IP laws.