The Evolving Landscape Of Personality Rights In India

Imagine waking up one morning to discover your face selling toothpaste in a country you've never even visited. Or picture scrolling through Instagram only to find a meme using your photo without your permission gaining more likes than your actual posts ever have. Welcome to the wonderfully chaotic world of personality rights, where your identity isn't just you anymore; it's intellectual property with legal muscle. As digital footprints grow deeper and data becomes currency, personality rights have moved from celebrity gossip columns to everyday conversations. Whether you're a public figure, a micro-influencer, or simply someone with a decent profile picture, the law now plays a crucial role in protecting your name, image, voice, and even those signature quirks that make you, you. This article delves into the constitutional underpinnings, statutory provisions, emerging principles, judicial pronouncements, and the inherent challenges and criticisms surrounding personality rights in India.

Introduction

Personality rights, often referred to as the right of publicity, represent an individual's exclusive right to control the use of their name, image, likeness, or other aspects of their identity. In an increasingly commercialized and digitally interconnected world, the value of one's persona, particularly for celebrities, public figures, and even ordinary individuals, has skyrocketed. India, with its vibrant media industry and burgeoning digital presence, has witnessed a significant evolution in the understanding and enforcement of these rights.

Constitutional Framework

The foundation of personality rights in India can be traced back to the expansive interpretation of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Primarily, Article 21, which guarantees the "Right to life and personal liberty," has been instrumental in shaping the jurisprudence around these rights. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, through a series of landmark judgments, has broadened the ambit of Article 21 to include various facets of human dignity, privacy, and the right to control one's own image and identity1. The right to privacy, recognized as an intrinsic part of Article 21, forms a crucial bedrock for personality rights, as it protects an individual's autonomy over their personal information and public representation.

Furthermore, Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees the "Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression," often comes into play, creating a delicate balance that courts must strike. While individuals have the right to protect their persona from unauthorized commercial exploitation, this right cannot be absolute and must be harmonized with the public's right to information, fair comment, and artistic expression. The constitutional framework thus provides a robust, albeit complex, foundation upon which personality rights are built, emphasizing both individual autonomy and societal interests. The judiciary has consistently affirmed that the right to control one's identity is a natural extension of human dignity, ensuring that individuals are not merely commodities to be exploited without their consent. This constitutional recognition elevates personality rights beyond mere commercial interests, imbuing them with a fundamental character. The evolving interpretation of these articles reflects a progressive legal system adapting to the complexities of modern society, where an individual's identity holds significant personal and commercial value.

Statutory Provisions

While there is no standalone legislation specifically dedicated to personality rights in India, various existing statutes indirectly offer protection, depending on the ultimately relief that is being sought by the court. There are several celebrities who has invoked writ jurisdictions of the Courts and there are several instances of filing a commercial suit, depending on the damages occurred to such individual.

Moral rights, such as the right of paternity (to claim authorship) and the right of integrity (to prevent distortion or mutilation of one's work), are inherent to creators and bear a close resemblance to personality rights. These rights ensure that the creator's identity and reputation associated with their work are safeguarded.

The Trademarks Act, 1999, provides another layer of protection. The name, likeness, signature, or even a distinctive pose of a celebrity can be registered as a trademark if it is used in the course of trade to distinguish goods or services. This prevents unauthorized commercial entities from using a celebrity's identity to endorse products or services, thereby capitalizing on their goodwill and reputation. The common law principle of passing off also serves as a potent tool. An action for passing off can be initiated when an unauthorized party misrepresents their goods or services as being associated with or endorsed by a well-known individual, leading to confusion among consumers and causing damage to the individual's reputation or commercial interests.

Moreover, the Information Technology Act, 2000, though primarily dealing with cybercrime and data protection, indirectly contributes to the protection of personality rights by addressing issues of identity theft and misuse of personal data in the digital realm. The absence of a specific statute, however, often necessitates a creative application of existing laws and reliance on judicial precedents to address the nuances of personality rights. The interplay of these diverse statutory provisions, coupled with common law principles, creates a multi-faceted legal landscape for the protection of an individual's persona. This patchwork approach, while effective to a degree, also highlights the need for a more consolidated and comprehensive legislative framework to address the unique challenges posed by the digital age.

Emerging Principles

The dynamic nature of media and technology has led to the emergence of several key principles in the realm of personality rights. One of the most significant is the Right to Publicity, which specifically grants individuals the exclusive right to control the commercial exploitation of their identity. This right recognizes the economic value inherent in a person's public image and prevents others from profiting from it without consent.

Another evolving area is Post-mortem Personality Rights. The question of whether personality rights survive the death of an individual and can be inherited by their legal heirs is a subject of ongoing debate and judicial consideration. While some jurisdictions recognize such rights for a limited period, Indian law is still developing a clear stance on this complex issue.

The rise of the digital age has also brought forth the concept of Digital Personality Rights. With the proliferation of social media, artificial intelligence, and deepfake technology, the unauthorized creation, manipulation, and dissemination of an individual's image or voice have become significant concerns. Protecting one's persona in the digital space, where content can go viral instantaneously, presents unique challenges that require innovative legal solutions. The courts are increasingly grappling with how to apply traditional legal principles to these novel digital infringements.

Furthermore, the principle of balancing personality rights with freedom of speech and expression remains a critical aspect. Courts are tasked with drawing a line between legitimate public interest, satire, parody, and news reporting, and the unauthorized commercial exploitation of an individual's identity. This delicate balance ensures that while individuals are protected, artistic freedom and public discourse are not unduly stifled. The evolving jurisprudence reflects a continuous effort to adapt legal frameworks to the rapid technological advancements and societal changes, ensuring that individual autonomy and commercial interests are adequately protected in the modern era. The recognition of these emerging principles underscores the proactive role of the judiciary in shaping the contours of personality rights in India.

"John Doe" Orders²(Ex Parte Injunctions against Unknown Persons), a significant contribution of the Delhi High Court has been the frequent issuance of "John Doe" or "Ashok Kumar" orders. These are ex parte injunctions granted against unknown defendants who are likely to infringe upon a celebrity's rights, particularly in the digital realm. This proactive measure allows celebrities to prevent widespread unauthorized use of their image, especially in cases of piracy or commercial exploitation by unidentified entities.

Delhi High Court's Take

The Delhi High Court has played a pivotal role in shaping the jurisprudence of personality rights in India, often taking a proactive stance in recognizing and enforcing these rights. Through various pronouncements, the court has consistently affirmed the commercial value of a celebrity's persona and has granted injunctions against unauthorized use of their names, images, and likenesses for commercial gain. The court has demonstrated a clear understanding that a celebrity's identity is a valuable asset, built through years of hard work and public recognition, and therefore deserves legal protection from exploitation.

The Delhi High Court has often relied on the principles of passing off and the broader interpretation of Article 21 to protect personality rights. It has emphasized that the unauthorized use of a celebrity's identity not only causes financial loss but also infringes upon their right to dignity and privacy. The court has been particularly vigilant in cases involving advertising and endorsements, where the unauthorized use of a celebrity's image can mislead consumers and dilute the celebrity's brand value. The court's approach reflects a progressive outlook, acknowledging the evolving nature of these rights in a media-driven society. Its orders in Aishwarya Rai Bachchan's case³, Karan Johar's⁴ case have contributed significantly to establishing a robust framework for the enforcement of personality rights, providing much-needed clarity and protection for individuals whose identities hold commercial value. The court's consistent efforts have fostered an environment where individuals can assert their rights against unauthorized commercial exploitation, thereby safeguarding their personal and professional integrity.

Challenges and Criticisms

Despite the evolving legal landscape, personality rights in India face several challenges and criticisms. One of the primary challenges lies in the ambiguity surrounding the definition of "personality" itself. What aspects of an individual's identity are protectable? Is it just their name and image, or does it extend to their voice, mannerisms, or even distinctive catchphrases? The lack of a clear statutory definition often leads to subjective interpretations and inconsistencies in judicial pronouncements.

Another significant criticism pertains to the scope and duration of these rights. Unlike copyright or trademark, there are no clear statutory guidelines on how long personality rights last, especially after the death of the individual. This uncertainty creates difficulties for legal heirs and complicates the commercial exploitation of a deceased celebrity's persona.

The constant tension between balancing personality rights with freedom of speech and expression remains a contentious issue. Critics argue that an overly broad interpretation of personality rights can stifle artistic creativity, satire, parody, and legitimate news reporting. Drawing a clear line between protected expression and unauthorized commercial exploitation is a complex task that courts continually grapple with.

Enforcement issues also pose a significant challenge, particularly in the digital age. The global nature of the internet makes it difficult to enforce personality rights across jurisdictions, and the rapid dissemination of content makes it challenging to control unauthorized use effectively. The sheer volume of online content and the anonymity offered by the internet further complicate enforcement efforts.

Finally, there is a debate about whether personality rights are purely commercial rights or also encompass an individual's dignity and privacy. While the commercial aspect is undeniable, critics argue that focusing solely on the economic value might overshadow the inherent human right to control one's identity and prevent its commodification. Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive legislative framework that provides clarity, consistency, and effective enforcement mechanisms, while also striking a judicious balance with other fundamental rights. The ongoing discourse surrounding these challenges is crucial for the continued evolution and refinement of personality rights jurisprudence in India.

Conclusion

The discourse surrounding personality rights in India reflects a fascinating intersection of law, technology, commerce, and human dignity. As individuals increasingly exist within both physical and digital spaces, the boundaries of personal identity continue to expand—and with them, the need for robust legal protection. The Indian judiciary, particularly the Delhi High Court, has demonstrated commendable foresight in adapting traditional legal principles to contemporary challenges. However, the absence of dedicated legislation leaves much to judicial interpretation, creating uncertainty and inconsistency.

To ensure comprehensive protection, India must move toward codifying personality rights within a clear statutory framework that recognizes both their commercial and dignitary dimensions. Such a framework should balance the right to control one's identity with the constitutional guarantee of free expression, ensuring that creativity, satire, and public discourse continue to flourish. As the digital landscape evolves, so too must the law—transforming personality rights from fragmented judicial constructs into a cohesive doctrine that truly safeguards the individuality, autonomy, and legacy of every person.

Footnotes

1. Rinkal Goyal, "Celebrity Rights: Protection Under IPR Regime", International Journal of Advanced Legal Research, Vol. 1, Issue 4-2, available at https://ijalr.in/volume-1/issue-4-2/celebrity-rights-protection-under-ipr-regime-by-rinkal-goyal/ (accessed on 15th October, 2025)

2. https://www.manupatrafast.in/NewsletterArchives%5Clisting%5CHariani%5C2015%5CJan/THE%20CURIOUS%20CASE%20OF%20'JOHN%20DOE'.pdf

3. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5943

4. Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 546

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.