Introduction

Personality rights, traditionally rooted in privacy, dignity, and control over one’s identity—are facing unprecedented stress due to generative AI. Deepfake technologies, synthetic media, and AI-generated impersonation are creating new risks of deception, reputational harm, financial loss, and large-scale identity exploitation. Recent legal disputes involving celebrities highlight widening vulnerabilities and the absence of a robust legal framework in India.

Why in the News? 

Amitabh Bachchan and Aishwarya Rai recently approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection against AI-generated videos that imitated their identity, voice, and catchphrases. This marks a major turning point because AI deepfakes are now powerful enough to replicate personalities at scale and for commercial misuse, something never seen before. The case exposes how India lacks a unified personality-rights legislation even as misuse grows rapidly, contrasting sharply with the stricter frameworks in the US, EU, and China.

Erosion of Personality Rights in the AI Era

1. AI Deepfakes: Enable face swaps, voice clones, and synthetic content that manipulate identity and support misinformation, malice, extortion, and erosion of trust.
2. Unchecked AI Use: Generates mass commodification of human identity, intensifying reputational and financial vulnerabilities.
3. Technological Trigger: The rise of generative AI tools has amplified impersonation risks and blurred lines between authenticity and deception.

How Does Indian Law Currently Address Personality Rights?

1. Fragmented Framework: India relies on privacy principles, constitutional protection, and selective case law but lacks a dedicated statute.
2. Judicial Protection:
   1. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy case (2017) upheld privacy as a fundamental right.
   2. Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022) recognised personality rights.
   3. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2023) banned misuse of his catchphrase “jhakaas” and likeness for diluted brand value.
   4. Arijit Singh v. Golden Ventures LLP (2024) protected his voice from AI replication.
3. Regulatory Limits: IT Act 2000 and Intermediary Guidelines 2021 address impersonation and deepfakes but lack enforcement clarity, especially for cross-border misuse.

How Do Global Jurisdictions Handle Personality Rights?

1. United States
   1. Right of Publicity: Treated as transferable property.
   2. Tennessee’s ELVIS Act (2024) bans unauthorized AI voice cloning and deepfake performances.
   3. Character.AI Cases: Highlight how AI models create digital personas that blur reality.
   4. First Amendment Constraints: Free speech limits over-regulation.
2. European Union
   1. GDPR: Provides dignity-based protection over personal and biometric data.
   2. EU AI Act (2024): Classifies deepfakes as high risk, mandates transparency and labelling.
3. China
   1. Internet Court Rulings (2024): AI-generated synthetic voices must not deceive consumers.
   2. AI-related cases treat voice actors and media workers as harmed individuals needing redress.

Why Does India Need a Comprehensive Personality-Rights Law?

1. Legal Vacuum: No dedicated statute addressing AI impersonation, deepfakes, monetisation of likeness, and cross-border exploitation.
2. AI Platforms’ Liability: Lack of clear obligations for watermarking, transparency, and algorithmic accountability.
3. Global Pressure: AI’s transnational nature demands compliance with international standards.
4. Growing Harm: Cases of identity theft, synthetic celebrity endorsements, and psychological impact from digital cloning are rising.

What Should India’s Legal Framework Include?

1. Explicit Definition: Clear categorisation of personality rights, covering image, voice, likeness, name, gestures, and distinctive traits.
2. Platform Accountability: Mandatory watermarking, AI content labelling, and traceability.
3. Consent Architecture: Requirement of explicit consent for any AI-generated replication.
4. Civil and Criminal Remedies: Compensation mechanisms and penalties for willful impersonation.
5. Cross-Border Enforcement: Harmonisation with EU, US, and global regulatory practices.
6. Ethical AI Standards: Transparency norms, audit trails, and safeguards against dataset misuse.

Conclusion

AI has radically transformed the nature of identity and personhood, challenging traditional legal doctrines surrounding privacy and personality rights. India must move from fragmented protections to a comprehensive, future-ready framework that secures individual autonomy while supporting responsible AI innovation. Without such reform, the risks of impersonation, exploitation, and identity erosion will only multiply.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2024] Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. Explain.

Linkage: This question directly links to personality rights and AI deepfakes, as both derive from the privacy-autonomy framework under Article 21. It is relevant because the erosion of digital identity through AI impersonation tests the very constitutional protection the Puttaswamy judgment established.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now