Published On: May 5, 2026
Authored By: Hrucha Kulkarni
Marathwada Mitra Mandal's Shankarrao Chavan Law College Pune
I. Introduction
Out here in the online world, who you are can be worth something real. Famous faces, sports stars, even well-known voices, what they look like or sound like carries monetary value. That mix of name, face, voice, and appearance adds up to what some call personality rights: control over how that identity shows up in advertisements or products. Without permission, others might not just reach out and profit. Personality rights keep a person’s presence out of random hands.
Some nations, like the United States, protect personal identity through clear statutes or long-standing court rulings. India’s system, by contrast, remains a work in progress. Rooted primarily in Article 21’s privacy guarantee, judges link individual dignity to control over one’s image.[1] Trademark rules concerning false representation also shape how these rights take form in practice. Now, AI-generated deepfakes spread rapidly, often using celebrities’ faces without consent. Because of this shift, voices are rising, from courts, experts, and the public, calling for clearer boundaries and real consequences.
II. Understanding Personality Rights
What someone looks like, or how they sound, can be legally theirs alone. Control over how that identity appears in advertisements or products falls under personal ownership rules.[2] A face, a name, even the distinctive way words are spoken, these details stay protected. Ownership means others need permission before using such features commercially. Specific characteristics tied to who a person is do not belong in the public domain without consent.
From law, two connected ideas form this concept:
1. Right to Privacy, Protecting Personal Autonomy and Dignity.
Privacy guards a person’s sense of self from unwanted exposure, shielding quiet moments from intrusion.
2. Right of Publicity, Safeguarding Identity Use.
This right blocks others from profiting off a person’s name, image, or likeness without permission. One right shields personal space; the other blocks commercial exploitation.
Nowhere is it written plainly in a single Indian statute, yet fame carries worth. Where legislation falls short, judges step in. Fame generates income, through advertisements, brand endorsements, and licensing. Reputation quietly becomes revenue, treated by courts much like owned property. Constitutional ideas fill the gap left by absent statutes, and courts act whenever someone’s image is used without consent. Protection emerges through legal reasoning, not rulebooks.
III. The Legal Framework in India
Constitutional Protection
The foundation for personality rights in India lies in how privacy came to be recognised as essential within Article 21 of the Constitution. In the landmark nine-judge bench ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India,[3] the Supreme Court held that the right to life and personal liberty encompasses more than mere survival, it includes the right to a private existence. Identity, dignity, and control over one’s self emerged as dimensions protected when privacy gains legal strength.
Though the hearing centred on data privacy under the Aadhaar scheme, it quietly opened the door to self-determination. People may now steer how their personal details are shared. Identity became less about administrative systems and more about individual choice. Control emerged not through force, but through words spoken in the highest court of the land.
Trademark and Passing Off Protection
Not every court move follows new paths, some borrow old ones. Indian judges have reached into passing off doctrine to shield personal identity. A company placing a celebrity’s face on its product without consent creates confusion, suggesting approval was given when it was not. Courts see that false association as a form of deception, rooted in familiar legal ground. The idea extends beyond names or faces, it encompasses what those things carry: trust built over time, attention earned, and influence grown from public recognition. What looks like image misuse often mirrors brand harm, so courts treat fame itself as carrying market weight.[4]
Tort Law Protection
Some court decisions rely on broad legal principles to block unauthorised profit from someone’s image. Protection may arise through false representation claims, unjust enrichment arguments, or breach of privacy torts. Clear legislation in this space is still absent, leaving uncertainty about how robust individual persona rights truly are within Indian law.
IV. Judicial Recognition of Personality Rights
ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises
A pivotal early moment came in ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises,[5] which set a marker for publicity rights. When the defendants began using names and visuals associated with the ICC Cricket World Cup without authorisation, they sparked what became a legal turning point.
The Delhi High Court held that the right to control commercial use of one’s image belongs solely to the individual concerned. When identity is used without permission, those merely linked by circumstance hold no claim, standing flows from personal connection, not proximity.
From that moment, Indian law began to acknowledge a person’s right to control their public image. Though not codified before, the idea found legal footing through this ruling. A door opened where none had previously existed, and recognition came, slowly but surely, from here.
DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House
A further shaping of personal image rights came in DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House.[6] The case involved Daler Mehndi, the celebrated Punjabi music artist. The defendants had produced dolls bearing his likeness without his approval, generating profit on their own terms.
The Delhi High Court made clear that a name is not merely a label when commercial interests are involved. Fame carries weight, the court noted, and shapes how public figures are entitled to control their image in advertising. Not every moment in the spotlight invites exploitation; some lines should not be crossed. Few cases before had drawn so firm a line on who owns a celebrity’s likeness.
Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers
Another instructive example is Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers.[7] Photographs of actors Amitabh Bachchan and Jaya Bachchan appeared in a jewellery promotion without their consent. The court examined how the images had been used commercially and emphasised that the absence of approval was determinative. Even indirect use counts when it draws on a public figure’s recognisability to imply endorsement.
The Delhi High Court ruled that the unauthorised use breached the actors’ personality rights and amounted to passing off. The judgment confirmed that a public figure’s identity holds commercial worth, a worth that courts must protect.
Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors.
A court recently examined how personal identity is misappropriated in digital spaces, in a claim brought by actor Anil Kapoor against Simply Life India.[8] His voice, face, and well-known catchphrases, elements closely tied to his public persona, were being replicated without consent, particularly through artificial intelligence tools.
The Delhi High Court granted relief, restraining defendants from selling goods or services using the actor’s image or persona without authorisation. The judgment signals a judicial awakening: AI-enabled impersonation is no longer treated as a fringe concern. Digital mimicry, the court seemed to say, is an injury that the law must address.
V. Challenges of the Digital Age
Artificial Intelligence and Deepfakes
AI can now generate lifelike images, audio, and video depicting people who never consented to their creation.[9] These fabrications appear convincingly real, and can damage reputations or mislead audiences. They raise difficult legal questions around identity theft, defamation, and unauthorised commercial use. Because technology moves faster than courts, the law continues to struggle to keep pace.
Social Media Exploitation
Online platforms now play a significant role in the misuse of personal identities. Unsanctioned fan accounts, fabricated sponsorships, and digitally altered images regularly appear to promote goods or attract attention. Because internet services operate across borders, taking legal action becomes considerably harder when harmful content originates in separate jurisdictions.
Absence of Clear Legislation
A major obstacle is that Indian law does not clearly define personality rights in statute. Judicial decisions have filled the gap using existing legal concepts, yet without codified rules, individuals face uncertainty when asserting such protections. Other jurisdictions, parts of the United States, for instance, enforce defined publicity rights through legislation. Clearer boundaries around who holds control, for how long, and what remedies are available might follow if India enacted comparable rules.
VI. The Case for Legislative Recognition
With identity becoming ever more valuable in today’s digital marketplace, it makes sense for Indian law to formally protect personal image rights.[10] Dedicated legislation could:
1. Define the scope of personality rights: specifying what elements of identity are protected, who holds those rights, and for how long.
2. Create remedies for unauthorised commercial exploitation: including injunctions, damages, and account of profits.
3. Strengthen enforcement on cross-border violations: providing mechanisms to act against infringing content hosted in foreign jurisdictions.
Firm legal rules would also help companies understand how they may properly use a celebrity’s name or likeness, replacing confusion with clarity in the advertising and entertainment industries.
VII. Conclusion
What constitutes a person’s identity often crosses into territory covered by privacy law, intellectual property, and commercial regulation. Even without a specific Indian statute built for personality rights, a line of judicial decisions shows growing consensus: using someone’s name or image for profit without consent should not go unchecked.
Landmark rulings: ICC Development v. Arvee Enterprises, DM Entertainment v. Baby Gift House, and Titan Industries v. Ramkumar Jewellers, each added depth to how Indian courts view identity rights. Most recently, Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India demonstrated that the judiciary is prepared to respond to AI-driven misappropriation of celebrity personas.
Digital mimicry is no longer harmless, judges are beginning to treat it as a cognisable injury. Not long ago, these issues barely existed as live legal questions. Now they sit at the centre of privacy and intellectual property debates. Technology pushes law forward, whether ready or not. What India needs next is legislation that pushes back with equal force.
References
Cases
[1] INDIA CONST. art. 21.
[2] Nyaaya, Protecting Celebrity Identity: Personality Rights in India, NYAAYA, https://nyaaya.org/nyaaya-weekly/protecting-celebrity-identity-personality-rights-in-india/ (last visited Mar. 2026).
[3] Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 S.C.C. 1 (India).
[4] Trade Marks Act, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).
[5] ICC Dev. (Int’l) Ltd. v. Arvee Enters., 2003 (26) P.T.C. 245 (Del.).
[6] D.M. Entm’t Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, 2010 (42) P.T.C. 520 (Del.).
[7] Titan Indus. Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 (50) P.T.C. 486 (Del.).
[8] Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914.
[9] Personality Rights: Celebrity Rights or Identity Theft, LIVELAW, https://www.livelaw.in/law-firms/law-firm-articles-/personality-rights-celebrity-rights-case-for-identity-theft-526079 (last visited Mar. 2026).
[10] Why Stars Are Turning to Courts for Personality Rights, HINDUSTAN TIMES (Nov. 20, 2023), https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/why-stars-are-turning-to-courts-for-personality-rights-101759085678831.html (last visited Mar. 2026).
Statutes
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
Trade Marks Act, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).
Copyright Act, No. 14, Acts of Parliament, 1957 (India).
Books
P. NARAYANAN, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (4th ed. 2017).
