In an era where artificial intelligence and digital content creation challenge the boundaries of individual identity, India has emerged as a jurisdiction actively shaping the future of personality rights. A recent court ruling in favour of veteran Indian actor Jackie Shroff, shielding him from unauthorized commercial exploitation, signals a turning point. This and other key developments reflect a maturing Indian legal landscape – one rooted in constitutional protections yet responsive to modern threats like deepfakes and AI-generated media.

For global IP practitioners, India offers a compelling case study: a rapidly evolving legal framework that protects both dignity and commercial value, even in the absence of specific legislation.

Legal Foundations: Constitution First, Statutes Second

India’s approach to personality rights is unique in that it relies not on a single statute but on an evolving blend of constitutional interpretation, statutory protections and common law remedies.

At the core lies Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), the Supreme Court recognized that the unauthorized use of a person’s identity could infringe these rights. This was reinforced by Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), where privacy was affirmed as a fundamental right.

Though personality rights are not codified under a dedicated law, they find indirect protection through:

• The Indian Copyright Act, 1957: Protects performers’ rights (Section 38) and moral rights (Section 57).
• The Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999: Prohibits the use of a living person’s name without consent (Section 14).
• Common law remedies: Including passing off and misappropriation.

Indian courts now recognize personality rights as both dignitary (protecting reputation and privacy) and proprietary (acknowledging commercial value), covering not just name and image, but also voice, gestures, mannerisms, and distinctive expressions.

Case Law: From Image Protection to AI Challenges

India’s legal recognition of personality rights has evolved gradually through influential rulings:

• Titan Industries v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012): The Delhi High Court protected cricketer M.S. Dhoni’s image, holding that his identity had acquired commercial goodwill.
• Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2023): The Delhi High Court extended protection to Kapoor’s voice, image, name, and even his signature phrase, “Jhakaas”, reflecting the court’s nuanced understanding of persona.
• Jackie Shroff Case (2024): The most recent milestone, where a court restrained unauthorized commercial use of the actor’s likeness, affirming that even without codified law, courts can enforce personality rights under existing principles.
• Bachchan v. YouTube (2025): Actors Abhishek and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan challenged YouTube over AI-generated content created without consent. The Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction, highlighting concerns about platforms enabling generative models to replicate protected personas. The case is a clear example of Indian courts adapting swiftly to the complexities of AI-related infringement.

India in the Global Context

Unlike the United States, where the right of publicity is governed by state-level statutes or Europe, which emphasizes privacy via human rights protections, India follows a judicially developed model. While this offers flexibility, it also demands careful legal interpretation and strategic litigation.

Some jurisdictions, such as Japan and Spain, provide statutory frameworks covering names, likenesses, and even signatures. However, enforcement remains uneven, particularly against borderless digital content. In this context, India’s jurisprudence stands out for its constitutional grounding and proactive judicial engagement.

Strategic Considerations for International IP Counsel

As India’s courts continue to expand the scope of personality rights, international practitioners engaged in talent management, branding, or digital content may find it helpful to consider certain strategic aspects when operating in the Indian context. While the legal landscape remains primarily court-driven, emerging patterns offer useful insights:

• Identity Risk Assessment: It may be prudent for brands and digital content creators to consider whether their use of AI tools, influencer content, or endorsements could intersect with recognisable personality traits-particularly when such traits are associated with Indian public figures.
• Comprehensive Licensing: Licensing agreements might benefit from clearly outlining the scope of permitted use, including names, likenesses, voice, gestures, and potentially AI-generated representations. Given recent jurisprudence, parties may find value in considering how such provisions address evolving technological realities.
• Platform Policy Review: In light of recent litigation involving AI training data, online platforms operating in India could find it worthwhile to review how user-generated content is handled, especially where such content may be used to train generative models.
• Use of Judicial Remedies: Observations from recent cases suggest that Indian courts are increasingly responsive to swift injunctive relief, including interim and John Doe orders. These mechanisms may be relevant in urgent scenarios involving reputational harm or viral misuse of personality attributes.

Conclusion: India’s Forward Momentum

India’s personality rights framework exemplifies how a constitutional system can adapt to emerging technologies through judicial innovation. Even without a codified publicity law, Indian courts have developed a layered, effective approach that balances personal dignity with commercial realities.

As deepfakes and AI-generated media continue to blur the lines between real and replicated personas, India’s evolving jurisprudence offers a roadmap-not just for national application, but for global legal thinking on identity protection.

For international IP professionals, India is not just a market-it’s a strategic jurisdiction leading the conversation on personality rights in the digital era