Published On: July 22nd 2026
Authored By: Ridhima Singh
S.S. Khanna Girls' Degree College, Affiliated to University of Allahabad
I. Introduction
The rapid advancement of technology in the 21st century has crossed the limits of imagination to the extent that now machines can create a portrait, compose a song, draft a legal brief, clone a voice and many more. Technologies such as deepfakes, voice cloning and AI-generated content can easily replicate the individual’s personality traits. The development raises novel legal questions, such as unauthorised AI model training on original artwork or the generation of synthesised vocal performances. We now live in a time when artificial intelligence doesn’t just mimic creativity but builds its own version of reality. While these developments are a major concern for all the users around the globe, the ones who are mostly affected are those who remain continuously in the spotlight.
Deepfake technology is a prediction engine that learns from a large sample of audio, video, and/or images of a target individual, identifying the patterns that define how that person looks, sounds, and generating novel content that reflects those patterns with sufficient fidelity to deceive an observer.[1] They are AI-generated media that intend to depict a person saying or doing something they never did.
Against this emerging issue, the Bombay High Court in Kartik Aaryan v. Vinsm Globe Pvt. Ltd. (2026) case represents an important milestone in the personality rights jurisprudence in India. The court in the said case had granted interim protection against the commercial exploitation of Kartik Aaryan’s personality traits, including his name, image, voice, likeness, and AI-generated representation.
This article aims to examine the legal development of the protection of personality traits in India in reference to the case of Kartik Aaryan.
II. The Legal Development
Before delving into the legal development of personality rights and the rights of Kartik Aaryan its important to go through the meaning of personality rights in India.
Personality rights are the claims that an individual makes to control unauthorised use and commercial misappropriation of their personality attributes, like name, image, voice, likeness, etc. Personality rights in the context of intellectual property refer to the legal rights that individuals have to control and protect aspects of their own persona, identity, and personal image. It also refers to the legal recognition of an individual’s control over the commercial and moral use of their identity attributes. In essence, these rights protect the persona, the unique expression of one’s individuality that holds both personal and commercial significance.
In the current status, the dispute arose when the personality rights of Kartik Aryan were infringed and commercially exploited by some of the entities, and for the protection of the same, the Actor approached the Bombay High Court.
“The court in the case held that, prima facie, the impugned material demonstrated an immediate requirement of a restraint order. Further, at the interim stage, there cannot be any objection to the relief of the injunction and deleting the infringing URLs. t the outset, on perusal of the material on record, the Court noted that the impugned merchandise and online content prima facie indicated unauthorised use of the plaintiff’s personality attributes and suggested a likely association or endorsement. The Court noted that the contents uploaded on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, etc., left no room for doubt about the unauthorised exploitation of the plaintiff’s personality attributes”[2].
“The Court observed that the right of publicity protects individuals against unauthorised exploitation of personality attributes, including name, image, likeness and voice. It found the material on record prima facie established a violation of the Plaintiff’s personality rights, publicity rights and right to privacy. The AI-generated explicit content was found prima facie prejudicial to his reputation”.[3]
III. The Legal Analysis
With the development of the Indian media industry, publicity rights gradually evolved in the background of the right to privacy. The evolution of personality rights was totally dependent on judgments made by the Indian Judiciary. The first landmark judgement in the history of personality rights was the case of R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (‘The Auto Shankar Case’)[4]. This was the very first case in which the Supreme Court of India had recognised the commercial use of their identity as a broader part of the right to privacy. It held that, except where information is derived from public records, no publication concerning a person’s private life can be made without their consent. This judgment laid the foundation for viewing personality rights as an extension of privacy rights.
- Article 21- Article 21 of the Constitution of India forms the basis of personality rights, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The right to life under this provision extends beyond mere existence to include dignity and autonomy, encompassing control over one’s name, image, likeness, and identity. Accordingly, any unauthorised exploitation of an individual’s persona amounts to a violation of Article 21.
- Copyright Act 1957- The Copyright Act, 1957, indirectly protects personality rights through moral rights under Sections 57 and 38B, including the rights of attribution and integrity. These provisions help safeguard performers’ identities by giving them control over the use and distortion of their performances. But Protection under copyright law is also not sufficient to protect personality rights, as not everyone comes under the definition of performer
- Trademarks Act – Sec 14 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, prohibits the use of personal names or representations without consent, thereby offering limited statutory recognition to aspects of personality rights.
So, as we have seen, an individual’s personality rights are part of his identity and are governed by the most fundamental right: the right to privacy. The unauthorised use of the Actor’s identity without his consent is an infringement of his Article 21.
If we go through the jurisprudential aspect of the concept of personality or publicity rights of the one who is widely known to the public, these people have acquired those rights over something because they have invested their labour, effort and skills into it. And it was the core idea of the Labour theory given by John Locke. An actor’s public image is created through the hard work and labour of years of professional efforts, public engagement, artistic works and reputation, and that is the reason why the identity of these well-known people deserves to be protected, especially from unauthorised commercial exploitation.
“The emergence of deepfakes and voice cloning technologies has transformed identity into a digital asset of commercial exploitation. Upon examining deepfake scam cases, it is revealed that celebrities’ likenesses are often used as a tool to establish credibility and bridge the trust gap between scammers and the general public. In the context of celebrity, it includes Bollywood actors, content creators, politicians, and other well-known personalities. They are becoming the targets through the misuse of their likeness for misinformation, which facilitates successful deception”.[5]
The problem with deepfakes scam cases is that they often remain unable to detect the platform’s liabilities in facilitating such digital content. A major proportion of acknowledging, reporting and complaining the data is on the victim, and these self-reporting mechanisms are problematic because a major proportion of the victims are unable to detect it. Also, the personality rights are provided to only celebrities or persons who are famous enough, and throughout the evolution of personality laws, the court has also granted remedies to celebrities only. What will be the remedy for those people who are lesser known? How can their persona be protected?
Also, there is an imbalance between the rights of an individual of freedom, speech and expression granted under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution and the right to personality under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The major concern that I had observed was that the actual problem is not actually the deepfake or the other technological advancements; the problem is that there is no legislative framework for protection, unlike the jurisdiction of the United States of America and common law countries. India does not possess any legislative framework for the protection of the personality law of known as well as common people. Protection of personality law is a combination of constitutional provisions, intellectual property rights and judicial precedents. It is appreciable that the courts have taken a step to fulfil this legal gap, but the absence of a comprehensive framework creates uncertainty regarding the scope of protection, available remedies, and the liability of digital intermediaries. Consequently, victims are often required to navigate multiple legal avenues to seek redress, resulting in delays and inconsistent outcomes.
IV. Conclusion
The decision in the case of Kartik Aaryan v. Vinsm Globe Pvt. Ltd.[2026] marks a significant development in the field of personality rights protection and intellectual property rights by providing protection to the individual’s persona, and it is appreciable that the judiciary is trying its best to align with the technological advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
This Article has demonstrated that personality rights are not just a part of intellectual property, but a part of major fundamental rights; it finds its roots in the right to privacy. At the same time, the commercial value attached to the famous people justifies the protection against the unauthorised use by third parties. However, the emergence of artificial intelligence and its advancement has exposed the limitations of the Indian Legislative frameworks.
The Indian Judiciary had played a major role in shaping the personality law, and rather, I would have played a more significant role than the legislature to shape the future of personality law in India. A little more comprehensive framework addressing these current emerging issues will be appreciated as because it would be reliable for both famous and common people. At last, the future of Personality laws in India depends upon balancing technological advancements and flexible laws.
V. References
[1] Deepfake, Proofpoint, https://www.proofpoint.com/us/threat-reference/deepfake (last visited June 15, 2026).
[2] Bombay HC Protects Kartik Aaryan’s Personality Rights, SCC Online Blog (Apr. 20, 2026), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/04/20/bombay-hc-protects-kartik-aaryan-personality-rights/.
[3] Alvin Antony (@alvin-antony-448742148), Kartik Aaryan vs Vinsm Globe Private Limited, LinkedIn (Oct. __, 2026), https://www.linkedin.com/posts/alvin-antony-448742148_kartik-aaryan-vs-vinsm-globe-private-limited-activity-7451231415180115968-PSrP
[4] 1994 SCC (6) 632
[5] Himanshi Jain, Dual-Victimisation in the Age of AI-Generated Deepfakes: Personality Rights Violation & Public Deception, 2 Int’l J. L. Culture & Soc’y 17 (2026)
