In the rapidly evolving landscape of digital media and celebrity culture, identity has become a valuable currency. Personal traits such as name, image, voice, and likeness are now frequently monetized, manipulated, or misused—often without the consent of the individuals concerned. The idea of personality rights, which represents a person’s right to regulate the commercial and non-commercial use of their persona, has become a crucial legal doctrine in reaction to these developments.
Though India does not yet have a consolidated statute on personality rights, their legal foundation rests upon constitutional guarantees and judicial interpretation, supported by fragmentary references in intellectual property and digital laws.
The Concept of Personality Rights
Personality rights can be understood as a bundle of rights that protect the individual’s identity from unauthorized use by third parties. These rights serve a dual function: one, to ensure the protection of privacy and dignity, and two, to enable economic control over commercial use of one’s image or likeness.
For celebrities and public figures, personality rights often translate into the right of publicity, where their identity carries commercial value. However, these rights are not confined to the elite or famous; in principle, they extend to every individual who seeks to maintain sovereignty over their identity, especially in an increasingly intrusive digital environment.
Constitutional Basis of Personality Rights
Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, provides the greatest basis for individual rights in India. The Supreme Court’s transformative ruling in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) elevated the right to privacy to a fundamental right under Article 21, thereby affirming that individuals have an inherent right to control their personal information and image.
The Court recognized that personal autonomy extends beyond physical boundaries to include control over one’s digital and representational self. Within this broader recognition of privacy lies the conceptual space for personality rights, as an extension of both dignity and decisional autonomy.
However, the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) frequently intersects with personality rights. This intersection creates a tension between protecting an individual’s identity and permitting artistic, journalistic, and satirical expressions.
Courts have often had to balance these competing interests, as seen in cases involving unauthorized biopics or character portrayals. The doctrine must therefore accommodate both personal dignity and legitimate public interest, without unduly suppressing free expression.
Statutory Landscape and Legal Gaps
Despite its growing importance, India lacks a dedicated law that defines and protects personality rights in a holistic manner. Instead, the legal framework comprises scattered statutory provisions, none of which fully encapsulate the concept.
The Copyright Act, 1957 protects creative expressions, but not a person’s image or identity unless it forms part of the copyrighted work. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, under Section 14, restricts the use of a living person’s or recently deceased person’s name or likeness in trademarks without their consent, and some public figures have used this provision to secure rights over their identity.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 offers partial relief through Sections 66E and 67, which criminalize the non-consensual distribution of private images and obscene content. However, these provisions are more oriented towards data and cyber crimes than toward comprehensive identity protection.
Similarly, the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 addresses unauthorized celebrity endorsements under the rubric of misleading advertisements but does not speak to broader personality-based harms.
The statutory silence becomes especially glaring in the context of emerging challenges like deep-fakes, AI-generated personas, and digital impersonation, where existing laws offer minimal protection.
Judicial Recognition and Landmark Cases
Indian courts have played a pioneering role in evolving the doctrine of personality rights in the absence of explicit legislative guidance. A seminal case in this domain is ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises (2003), where the Delhi High Court affirmed that the right to publicity rests with the individual and not with the organizer of an event. This decision marked a significant departure from the narrow interpretation of personality rights.
In Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012), the High Court of Delhi ruled that using the images of actors Amitabh and Jaya Bachchan in a jewellery advertisement without consent constituted a clear infringement of their personality rights.
Similarly, in DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House (2010), the unauthorized use of a Daler Mehndi look-alike doll was found to infringe the artist’s right to control the commercial exploitation of his identity.
In Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P. & Co. (2017), the Delhi High Court refused an injunction against the use of the cricketer’s name by a restaurant, ruling that the establishment had included disclaimers and that there was no direct attempt to capitalize on the cricketer’s image. The case underscored the need to distinguish between mere identity overlap and actual misappropriation or passing off.
On May 30, 2025, in Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev & Anr. v. Igor Isakov & Ors. (CS (COMM) 578/2025), a notable instance involving Sadhguru and personality rights arose when the Isha Foundation, associated with him, issued legal notices to brands and individuals misusing his image, voice, and name without consent.
These acts violated his personality rights, which include the right to control commercial use of one’s identity. While there’s no landmark court judgment specifically about Sadhguru on this issue, his legal team has asserted that unauthorized exploitation of his persona amounts to infringement under common law personality rights, invoking protection under Article 21 of the Constitution (Right to Privacy) and the Copyright Act, 1957 when applicable.
Digital Challenges and the Rise of AI
The digital age presents new and unprecedented threats to personality rights. Technologies like deep-fakes, voice cloning, and AI-generated avatars have made it easier than ever to manipulate and misuse a person’s image or likeness.
This exploitation is not limited to celebrities; even ordinary individuals face risks of impersonation, defamation, or blackmail through digitally altered content. Social media platforms exacerbate the problem, often serving as breeding grounds for unauthorized dissemination of personal identity content with little accountability.
In such a context, the absence of a data protection law and the limited reach of current IT legislation fail to offer meaningful remedies. Unlike jurisdictions such as California, which offer extended posthumous personality rights for up to 70 years, India has no statutory recognition of whether personality rights survive death.
This gap is particularly concerning in an era where digital resurrection of deceased figures for advertisements or films is becoming technologically feasible.
Towards a Comprehensive Legal Framework
The fragmented nature of personality rights protection in India calls for urgent legislative intervention. A comprehensive statute should define the scope of personality rights, covering identifiable attributes such as name, likeness, image, voice, signature, and digital persona.
It must outline the conditions for lawful use, consent mechanisms, posthumous rights, and exceptions for news reporting, academic research, and parody. The statute should also provide for remedies such as injunctions, damages, and take-down orders, and include jurisdictional rules for cross-border online violations.
Such a law would not only ensure clarity in the enforcement of personality rights but also align India with international standards. It would protect individuals from economic and reputational harm, while simultaneously respecting the freedom of expression and legitimate public interest.
Most importantly, it would signal a shift towards recognizing the inviolability of personal identity in an era where human personas are becoming digital commodities.
Conclusion
Personality rights in India represent a vital but underdeveloped area of law. Rooted in constitutional values of dignity and autonomy, these rights have been progressively recognised by courts but continue to suffer from statutory fragmentation and uncertainty.
As personal identity becomes increasingly commercialized and technologically manipulable, the legal system must evolve to provide robust protection that is both preventive and remedial. The judiciary has laid the foundation, but it is now for the legislature to build the edifice.
A well-drafted personality rights law would not only safeguard individual dignity but also uphold democratic values in a society where identity is everything.
References :-
Narayan, Intellectual Property Law 613–17 (5th ed. 2012).
Indian Constituion, art. 21.
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
The Copyright Act, No. 14 of 1957, India Code (1957).
The Trade Marks Act, No. 47 of 1999, Sec. 14, India Code (1999).
The Information Technology Act, No. 21 of 2000, Sec. 66E, 67, India Code (2000).
The Consumer Protection Act, No. 35 of 2019, India Code (2019).
ICC Dev. (Int’l) Ltd. v. Arvee Enters., 2003 SCC OnLine Del 413.
Titan Indus. Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382.
DM Ent. Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3004.
Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P. & Co., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10706.
