- within Technology topic(s)
- with Finance and Tax Executives and Inhouse Counsel
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
The rapid growth of artificial intelligence has brought many creative opportunities, but it has also opened the door to one of the biggest modern threats to identity: deepfakes. Deepfakes are videos or images that use AI to realistically replace one person's face or voice with another's. What started as a fun internet trend has now become a serious legal and ethical issue, especially when famous personalities find their faces, voices, or likenesses used without permission. In India, courts are beginning to treat this as a major concern under the expanding concept of personality rights. The question now is how far the law can go in protecting an individual's identity in a world where technology can copy anyone's face or voice perfectly.
Personality rights are not directly mentioned in any Indian statute, but they have evolved through judicial interpretation. They are connected to the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution and to the right to publicity, which allows a person to control the commercial use of their image and name. For celebrities and public figures, personality rights protect not only their personal identity but also their commercial value. When someone uses a famous person's image to sell products or promote content without consent, it violates both their privacy and their economic interest. However, deepfakes present a more complex challenge because they are not always created for commercial gain. Many are made for humor, political satire, or even malicious misinformation.
In 2024, the Delhi High Court delivered one of the most important orders on this issue in Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors., where the legendary actor sought protection against the unauthorized use of his likeness, voice, and persona in fake advertisements and videos. The court recognized that celebrities have an inherent right to control how their image and identity are used. The judge observed that deepfake technology can cause serious reputational harm and mislead the public, especially when the fake video looks so real that viewers cannot tell the difference. The court granted an interim injunction, stopping anyone from using Mr. Bachchan's image, voice, or AI-generated likeness without his consent.
Since then, several other celebrities have filed similar petitions. In 2025, actors like Hrithik Roshan, Katrina Kaif, and Anil Kapoor approached the Delhi High Court after discovering AI-generated videos of them endorsing products or making statements they never actually made. The court has consistently recognized that such use violates their personality rights and can amount to passing off, misappropriation, and even defamation in some cases. What makes these cases special is that the courts are treating deepfake misuse as not just a moral wrong but also a form of intellectual property infringement, because it involves unauthorized use of a person's identifiable features, which hold commercial value.
The Delhi High Court's proactive stance shows that Indian law is slowly adapting to the digital world. However, there is still no comprehensive statute specifically addressing deepfakes or personality rights. The Copyright Act protects creative works, but not human identity. The Trade Marks Act can cover brand names and logos, but not faces or voices. The Information Technology Act deals with data misuse and cybercrime, but not identity cloning through AI. This legal gap makes it difficult for victims of deepfakes to seek timely and effective remedies unless they are famous enough to attract court attention.
This is where the proposed Digital India Bill, which is expected to replace the current IT Act, becomes very important. The draft discussions suggest that it may include provisions for protecting digital identity and penalizing misuse of AI-generated content. Law experts believe that this could become India's first real framework for regulating deepfakes, balancing freedom of expression with the need for privacy and authenticity. The Bill may also create obligations for social media platforms and content hosts to remove or label AI-generated media, similar to how the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act requires transparency when synthetic media is used.
From a legal education perspective, this development is fascinating. It shows how the boundaries between privacy law, intellectual property, and technology law are merging. Personality rights are no longer only about endorsing a product or preventing false advertising; they are now about protecting the essence of human identity. Courts are also exploring whether a person's face, voice, and gestures can be treated as personal property in a commercial sense. If that happens, it could reshape the entire idea of what counts as intellectual property. Instead of protecting only creative works or inventions, the law might start protecting digital replicas of human beings themselves.
However, extending personality rights to everyone, not just celebrities, poses its own challenges. If every person has a right to control how their face or voice is used online, platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube would face enormous compliance burdens. There is also the risk that overregulation could stifle creativity, satire, and freedom of expression. For instance, a comedian who mimics a politician or an artist who uses AI to comment on celebrity culture might get caught in the same legal net as someone who creates malicious deepfakes. Finding that balance will be one of the biggest tasks for lawmakers.
Another interesting aspect is how technology companies are responding. Major AI firms like Meta, OpenAI, and Google have started adding watermarks or disclaimers to AI-generated content. They also claim to use "consent-based" datasets, although many artists and public figures argue that their data and images were used without approval. India's lack of clear rules on training data makes it even harder to prove whether a specific face or voice was included in an AI dataset. As AI tools become more easily available, it is almost impossible to stop individuals from generating deepfakes privately, which means the law will have to focus more on regulation and accountability rather than prohibition.
In my view, this is one of the most exciting and urgent areas of intellectual property law today. It forces us to rethink what ownership means in a digital world. When technology can perfectly imitate your face or your voice, identity itself becomes a form of intellectual property. For students of law, this topic connects constitutional rights, IP principles, and cyber law in one powerful mix. It also shows that courts are not waiting for Parliament to act; they are using existing doctrines creatively to protect individuals against misuse.
What stands out about the Delhi High Court's approach is its emphasis on human dignity. The judges are not only thinking about economic harm but also about personal autonomy. A person should have the right to decide how they are represented in public, and that right should not vanish just because technology has advanced. This approach aligns with the global trend seen in countries like the United States, where states such as California have enacted specific "right of publicity" laws that protect individuals from unauthorized use of their likenesses, and in the European Union, where privacy laws provide strong safeguards against digital impersonation.
In the years ahead, India will have to draft clearer laws defining how deepfake creation and distribution are regulated. The courts can only interpret the law; real change will come through legislation. As AI becomes more integrated into social media and entertainment, the line between real and fake will continue to blur. Lawmakers must ensure that legal frameworks protect truth, consent, and creative freedom in equal measure.
The issue of deepfakes and personality rights represents the new frontier of intellectual property. It is not about patents or trademarks in the traditional sense, but about ownership of identity in a world where digital imitation has become effortless. For young law students and professionals, this is an area worth watching closely, because the solutions India develops today will shape how future generations understand privacy, creativity, and individuality in the age of artificial intelligence
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
