- within Privacy topic(s)
- with Finance and Tax Executives and Inhouse Counsel
- in India
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy, Oil & Gas and Law Firm industries
INTRODUCTION
Personality is an aspect of human character that makes a person unique with respect to other human beings. In its most basic sense, it comprises attributes such as a person's voice, speech, physical traits, and behavioural aspects. It makes a person unique and protects their diverse characteristics and the manner in which they differ in terms of originality. The interesting question here is, in today's world of AI and fast-evolving technology, is personality safe? Is it being protected properly? Does it have the right to be protected? What happens to personality when the person dies? Can other people use these attributes for their own or commercial use? Many more questions like these arise in the mind whenever we think in terms of concepts like Deepfakes, Voice Cloning, Chatbots imitating real individuals, AI-generated fake interviews, etc. This article aims to provide answers to all the questions mentioned above.
WHAT ARE PERSONALITY RIGHTS
According to Legal Authority, to protect the above personality traits, there are some rights that are with the person from the time of their birth. These rights are known as personality rights.1 In the Indian scenario, the concept of personality rights is not codified in a specific statute; however, it has evolved through various judicial precedents till now. The cases themselves cover a broad scope of rights related to publicity and privacy rights, which are interlinked with different legislations. The laws covered in these cases are constitutional rights, media laws, intellectual property rights, etc.
A LOOK INTO PRIVACY RIGHTS AND PUBLICITY RIGHTS
The individual's legitimate right to choose how much of himself he wants to share with others, as well as the authority to choose when, where, and under what conditions to do so. It refers to his freedom to leave or to take part as he thinks proper. It also refers to a person's right to manage how information about them is shared; this is a personal decision.2
THE PUTTASWAMY CASE (THE AADHAAR CASE)3
The Puttaswamy case, also known as the Aadhaar Card case, dealt with the Aadhaar initiative, which was introduced to facilitate public service delivery and combat corruption. Justice Puttaswamy argued that biometric data is not necessary for welfare schemes, and making it compulsory amounts to a violation of the Right to Privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Many conflicting rulings, some stating that the right to privacy is not a fundamental right and others supporting it, were the cause for concern. The Aadhaar card scheme included the collection of personal data like fingerprint scans, facial scans, and retina scans. These are personality traits that were collected and stored by the government in a central server, which could be very harmful if the data were leaked. Safety measures were not properly regulated, and the data could have been easily accessible to private entities.
The Supreme Court held that demographic or biometric data collection is not, in itself, a violation of the Right to Privacy. It declared the Aadhaar scheme constitutional but struck down certain provisions, including Section 57, Section 33(1), Section 33(2), Section 47, and Section 2(d).
The Attorney General of India was of the view that the Constitution makers had intentionally refrained from adding the Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right. Nevertheless, after taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to privacy is a fundamental right since it is based on Articles 14, 19, 20, 21, and 25.
Hon'ble Justice D.Y. Chandrachud: "Privacy is intrinsic to freedom, liberty, and dignity without privacy there can be no dignity, and dignity is essential for the realization of all other rights." This marked a historical recognition of the Right to Privacy.
KRISHNA KISHORE SINGH V. SARLA A. SARAOGI AND ORS.4
In this 2-Judge bench case, the issues involved violation of celebrity rights, the Right to Publicity, violation of the Right to Privacy, and violation of the Right to a Fair Trial. There is no express statutory recognition of publicity rights, personality rights, or celebrity rights in India.
The Court dismissed the averment relating to the Right to Free Trial and accordingly dismissed the petition. It firmly stated that privacy and publicity rights cannot be enforced by successors. The Supreme Court justified that since the film used information that was present in the public domain and no immediate violation or exploitation occurred during the actor's lifetime, no infringement of posthumous personality rights arose.
The decision upheld the doctrine that the dead have no enforceable personality rights and that all individuals, celebrity or otherwise, stand equal in the eyes of the law. This principle has guided Indian judicial reasoning ever since.
However, the Court added that if the plaintiff were successful in proving or providing evidence that the publicity rights of SSR belonged to or could be transferred to heirs (here, his father or family), then the Court would definitely rehear the matter.
ICC DEVELOPMENT LIMITED V. ARVEE ENTERPRISES (2003, DELHI HC)
In the famous case of ICC Development Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, decided by the Delhi High Court, the question before the Court was: "whether the ICC, being a non-human entity, had publicity rights in the World Cup event?"
The Court held that publicity rights can only vest in individual human beings, and not in non-human entities such as events or organisations. The reasoning was based on the interpretation of the word persona, which means an individual human being, and not a non-human entity.
The Court asserted that extending these rights to non-living entities would amount to a violation of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The U.S. approach to this matter is different. For instance, in White v. Samsung, it was asserted that commercial identity can extend beyond humans. However, the Indian Court reasoned that publicity rights in India stem from the concept of privacy rights, and privacy rights are inherent to human beings. Hence, their scope cannot be widened to cover non-human entities. If such an extension were allowed, it would be a violation of Article 21.
DM ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.5
In the Delhi High Court case of DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., a company owned by singer Daler Mehndi, the company was established in 1996 to manage his commercial and charitable activities. The company was granted the license to use his personal image and publicity rights.
The defendants, i.e., shops in Delhi, were selling dolls named "Son Toys," which physically resembled Daler Mehndi through features such as the turban, beard, and attire. These dolls also played his songs, and even the bills and receipts described them as "Daler Mehndi dolls."
The plaintiff argued that this constituted the misappropriation of personality rights. The issue before the Court was whether the unauthorised sale of these dolls led to the infringement of his Right to Publicity or Personality Rights.
Taking into consideration the commercial aspect of the case, the Court held that a person's persona is protected under property rights, and its commercial use without consent amounts to a violation of the Right to Publicity. The Court reasoned that publicity rights are quasi-property rights, rooted in a person's identity and reputation.
DOES A COMPANY OWN PERSONALITY RIGHTS?
This case also gave rise to an interesting question, i.e., "whether a company or an organization could own the personality rights of an individual?" The Court asserted that because Daler Mehndi had assigned his publicity rights along with the trademark of his name to the company with the goodwill, the company can definitely hold and enforce the publicity rights of a person who has legitimately assigned them. Therefore, the Court held that one can transfer the publicity rights, and they can also be owned by a legal entity.
TITAN INDUSTRIES LTD. V. RAMKUMAR JEWELLERS6
In the case of Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, Titan had appointed Amitabh Bachchan and Jaya Bachchan as brand ambassadors for Tanishq Diamond Jewellers. Rajkumar Jewellers, a local jeweller in Uttar Pradesh, used the same advertisement and put up hoardings copying Titan's advertisement.
The issue was whether the unauthorized use of Amitabh Bachchan and Jaya Bachchan's persona amounted to infringement of their publicity rights.
The Court held that Titan had the exclusive license and copyright over the advertisement. The Court also identified the publicity rights of the celebrities, holding that they have autonomy over the commercial use of their personality.
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
The United States recognizes publicity rights and also considers them as assignable, licensable, and transferable. Posthumous publicity rights are also recognized and are transferable to the heirs of the person. For example, California recognizes personality rights after death for 70 years, while Indiana recognizes them for 100 years.7
In the UK, no separate statutory recognition has been given to personality rights. However, it is covered under torts and intellectual property rights. There is also no mention of posthumous rights. Once a person dies, their image or likeness is not protected as property.8
In the European Union, personality rights are strongly tied to human dignity, privacy, and data protection rather than property rights. They are mainly derived from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. There is no uniform law on posthumous personality rights across the EU; however, in certain jurisdictions, these rights can be transferred to heirs.9
CONCLUSION:
Finally, going through all the case laws and the international legal framework, we come to know that the Indian view of personality rights arises from the concept of privacy rights and hence, they die with the death of the person. It may seem a bit conservative as compared to the U.S. legislation, as in India, the rights are neither transferable nor recognised posthumously. Many critics say that this approach needs reformation and modification, considering the commercial use as well as the illegal exploitation of the rights.
The Indian perspective is a two-sided coin; it tends to protect as well as violate the right at the same time. On one side, it protects personality rights throughout the lifetime of the person, as an assignee or licensee would not have any grounds to violate or transfer the rights to a third party. This is especially so in matters of exclusive licensing as well as the protection of one's personality without the consent of the person. But on the other side, it gives autonomy to other people to use the personality attributes of the person after death, especially if the person has not left a testimony or a will, as the question of inheritance to heirs was kept open in the Sushant Singh Rajput case. Finally, there remains significant scope for evolution and improvement in the adoption of laws, and India is gradually moving in that direction
Footnotes
1 Personality, Indian Law Dictionary, Legal Authority https://www.legalauthority.in/dictionary/personality accessed 21 September 2025.
2 Divan MG, Facets of Media Law (2006)
3 K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (Aadhaar-5J) (2019) 1 SCC 1
4 Krishna Kishore Singh v Sarla A Saraogi [2023] SCC OnLine Del 3997 https://www.scconline.com/.
5 D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v Baby Gift House [2010] SCC OnLine Del 4790 https://www.scconline.com/.
6 Titan Industries Ltd v Ramkumar Jewellers [2012] SCC OnLine Del 2382 https://www.scconline.com/
7 Cal Civ Code § 3344.1 (2023) https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/civil-code/civ-sect-3344-1/ accessed 21 September 2025.
8 Intellectual Property Office, 'Personality Rights' https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/capital-gains-manual/cg68450 accessed 21 September 2025.
9 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 'Protection of Personal Data' https://fra.europa.eu/en/eu-charter/article/8-protection-personal-data accessed 21 September 2025.
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.
