Introduction

Personality rights, the right to control one’s name, image, likeness, and voice, have become a critical issue in India’s courts. With AI enabling deepfakes, voice cloning, and digital impersonation, Bollywood celebrities like Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, Anil Kapoor, and Jackie Shroff have approached courts to restrain unauthorised commercial exploitation of their persona. While these judicial interventions protect individual dignity and brand equity, they also raise complex questions about the balance between Article 21 (privacy and autonomy) and Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression).

Why is this in the news?

The Delhi High Court recently issued orders protecting Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan from AI-generated misuse of their images and voices. This is significant because:

1. Novel threat: It highlights how AI deepfakes and voice cloning are creating unprecedented risks for identity and privacy.
2. Judicial trend: Courts are extending personality rights protections to celebrities such as Karan Johar, Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor, Jackie Shroff, and Arijit Singh.
3. Big problem: Without regulation, AI-driven impersonation undermines trust, dilutes brand equity, and strips individuals of control over their identity.
4. Turning point: Courts are now explicitly linking personality rights to Article 21 of the Constitution, signalling a constitutional recognition of digital dignity.

How are personality rights defined in India?

1. Safeguards: Personality rights protect name, likeness, image, voice, signature, and other unique traits.
2. Legal foundation: Rooted in common law doctrines of privacy, publicity, and defamation, supported by judicial precedents.

Statutory framework:

1. Copyright Act, 1957: Sections 38A & 38B grant performers exclusive and moral rights over their performances.
2. Trade Marks Act, 1999: Allows registration of names/signatures as trademarks (e.g., Shah Rukh Khan, Priyanka Chopra).
3. Tort of Passing Off: Prevents misrepresentation of a celebrity’s persona as endorsement.

How have courts shaped personality rights?

1. R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994): Supreme Court recognised the right to control one’s identity, grounding it in privacy under Article 21.
2. Rajinikanth case (2015): Madras HC restrained unauthorised use of the actor’s persona in a film.
3. Anil Kapoor case (2023): Delhi HC granted wide-ranging protection, clarifying that free speech covers parody/satire but not commercial misuse.
4. Jackie Shroff case (2024): Court restrained misuse of his persona on e-commerce and AI platforms.
5. Arijit Singh case (2024): Bombay HC recognised risks of voice cloning through AI.

Do personality rights restrict free expression?

Free speech scope: Article 19(1)(a) allows criticism, parody, satire, and lampooning of public figures.

Judicial caution:

1. DM Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2010): Caricatures and parodies do not usually infringe publicity rights.
2. Digital Collectibles v. Galactus Funware (2023): Material already in the public domain may be used without implying endorsement.
3. Balancing test: Courts strike a balance between creative freedom and protection of dignity/brand equity.

Why is regulation urgently needed?

1. Fragmented protections: Enforcement is currently piecemeal, relying on case law.
2. Digital threats: Generative AI expands risks of impersonation and deepfakes.
3. Disproportionate impact: Ordinary citizens, especially women targeted through revenge porn, face greater harm.
4. Policy need: Experts call for a comprehensive legislative framework to clearly define exceptions and ensure free speech is not chilled.

Conclusion

The judiciary is laying down crucial guardrails for personality rights in the digital age, particularly against AI-driven impersonation. However, without a clear legislative framework, judicial interventions remain reactive. The challenge lies in balancing dignity and privacy with freedom of speech, ensuring that protections do not turn into censorship while still safeguarding individuals, from Bollywood celebrities to ordinary citizens, against misuse of their identity.

[UPSC 2024] Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of child in the womb to establish its paternity.

Linkage: The PYQ on Right to Privacy under Article 21 examines autonomy over personal identity, like in DNA testing. This article is relevant as it shows courts extending privacy into personality rights against AI misuse, with case laws and statutes providing examples to balance privacy and free speech in UPSC answers.

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

Attend Now