Author: Swati Singh, Haveli Institute of Legal Studies and Research, Silvassa
To the Point
Artificial Intelligence has changed the way digital content is created. Today, AI tools can generate photographs, videos and voices that look or sound almost like real people. This development is useful for creativity and technology, but it can also create problems when someone’s identity is used without their consent.
Personality rights protect the identity and distinctive characteristics of an individual. These may include a person’s name, face, voice, likeness, style and other features associated with their identity. With the growth of deepfakes and generative AI, these features can be copied, modified or recreated very easily.
Indian law does not currently provide one complete legislation dealing specifically with personality rights. Courts have therefore developed protection by using existing principles relating to privacy, dignity, publicity rights, passing off and intellectual property.
The Delhi High Court has recently dealt with several cases where the identities of public figures were misused through digital and AI-generated content. In the Ravi Kishan case, for example, the Court restrained unauthorized exploitation of his personality through AI, deepfakes and other technologies.
However, protection should not mean that every use of a person’s identity becomes unlawful. There must be a balance between personality rights, freedom of expression, legitimate criticism, creativity and technological innovation.
Use of Legal Jargon
Personality Rights – Legal protection given to the identifiable features and identity of an individual.
Right to Privacy – Protection of an individual’s personal identity and private sphere, particularly recognised under Article 21.
Right to Dignity – Protection of a person’s dignity and reputation from serious harm or humiliation.
Right of Publicity – The right to control the commercial exploitation of one’s identity and personal attributes.
Deepfake – AI-generated or digitally manipulated material that realistically imitates a person’s appearance, voice or actions.
Generative AI – AI technology capable of producing new content such as images, videos, audio or text.
Passing Off – A legal remedy against misrepresentation that may cause confusion or damage the goodwill or reputation associated with another person.
Injunction – An order of the Court restricting a person from carrying out or continuing a particular act.
Intermediary Liability – The legal issues concerning the responsibility of online platforms for content shared through their services.
Misappropriation of Identity – Unauthorised taking or exploitation of another person’s identity for one’s own benefit.
The Proof
The increasing availability of generative AI provides a clear example of how easily a person’s identity can now be reproduced online. A face can be placed into another video, a voice can be digitally recreated and photographs can be manipulated within a short period of time.
This creates a serious concern because the person whose identity has been used may have no control over the resulting content. If the material is obscene, defamatory, misleading or commercially exploitative, it can cause damage to the person’s reputation, dignity, privacy and goodwill.
The Delhi High Court has responded to this problem through recent personality-rights cases. In Ravi Kishan v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., the Court granted interim protection against unauthorised use of Ravi Kishan’s name, image, likeness, voice and other personality attributes, including through AI, Generative AI, Machine Learning and deepfakes.
Similarly, in the case concerning Sonakshi Sinha, the Delhi High Court restrained unauthorised use of her name, voice, image, likeness and other attributes, including through AI-generated material, deepfake videos and voice-cloned audio. The Court also directed the removal of specified infringing URLs.
These developments show that the courts are not treating AI as a separate area where existing rights disappear. Instead, existing legal principles are being applied to new technological situations.
Another important aspect is the commercial value of personality. A celebrity’s name, voice, appearance or image may be strongly associated with their professional identity. Unauthorised use may therefore create a false impression of endorsement or association and may also result in financial benefit to another person.
At the same time, not every use of a public figure’s identity should automatically be prohibited. News reporting, criticism, satire, education and other legitimate forms of expression may require protection. This makes the issue more complicated and highlights the importance of balancing competing rights.
The present legal position therefore shows both judicial development and a legal gap. Courts have been providing remedies through existing principles, but India still does not have one comprehensive legislation specifically addressing personality-rights violations caused by AI-generated content.
Abstract
The emergence of Artificial Intelligence has created new challenges for the protection of individual identity. Modern AI systems can generate realistic images, videos and voices, making it possible to reproduce or manipulate a person’s identity without their consent. Such misuse can affect privacy, dignity, reputation and commercial interests.
In India, personality rights have developed mainly through judicial decisions rather than through one comprehensive statute. Courts have relied on principles relating to Article 21, privacy, dignity, publicity rights, passing off and other legal remedies to protect individuals against unauthorised exploitation.
The Delhi High Court has recently dealt with AI-generated content and deepfakes in personality-rights disputes involving public figures. These decisions demonstrate the judiciary’s attempt to apply existing legal principles to rapidly developing technology. The article examines this evolving judicial approach and the difficulties created by AI-based identity misuse.
It also considers the need for a balance between personality rights and freedom of speech, creativity and technological innovation. The article argues that stronger legal clarity may be required as AI technology continues to develop.
Case Laws
1. Ravi Kishan v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. (2026)
The Delhi High Court granted interim protection to Ravi Kishan against unauthorised exploitation of his personality. The protection covered his name, image, voice, likeness and other distinctive personality attributes.
The Court specifically restrained misuse through technologies including Artificial Intelligence, Generative AI, Machine Learning and deepfakes. It also issued directions concerning objectionable online material. The case is significant because it directly addresses the use of modern AI technology for identity misuse.
2. Sonakshi Sinha v. Character Technologies Inc. (2026)
The Delhi High Court protected Sonakshi Sinha’s personality and publicity rights against unauthorised exploitation of her identity. The Court covered her name, voice, image, likeness and other attributes uniquely associated with her.
Importantly, the order specifically included AI-generated content, deepfake videos and voice-cloned audio. The Court also directed certain online platforms to disable or remove infringing URLs.
3. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. (2023)
The Delhi High Court recognised the importance of protecting Anil Kapoor’s personality rights against unauthorised exploitation of his identity. The case involved different elements associated with his persona and their commercial misuse.
The decision became an important development in Indian personality-rights jurisprudence because it recognised that distinctive characteristics associated with a celebrity can possess commercial value and require legal protection.
4. Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors. (2022)
The Delhi High Court granted protection against unauthorised exploitation of Amitabh Bachchan’s personality attributes, including his name, image and voice.
The case demonstrated that a well-known individual’s identity can have significant commercial value and that third parties cannot freely exploit such attributes without authorisation.
Conclusion
Artificial Intelligence has made it much easier to recreate and manipulate a person’s identity. While this technology can encourage creativity and innovation, its misuse can seriously affect a person’s privacy, dignity, reputation and commercial interests.
The recent approach of the Delhi High Court shows that courts are willing to protect personality rights even when the misuse takes place through modern technologies such as generative AI and deepfakes. The decisions involving Ravi Kishan and Sonakshi Sinha are particularly important because the Court specifically addressed AI-generated and digitally manipulated material.
In my opinion, India should move towards a clearer legal framework dealing with personality rights and AI-generated content. Such a framework should provide effective remedies against serious identity misuse while ensuring that genuine criticism, journalism, satire, creativity and technological development are not unnecessarily restricted.
There should therefore be a proper balance between individual rights and technological freedom. AI should be encouraged as a tool for innovation, but it should not become a tool for exploiting, misleading or harming individuals.
The evolving decisions of the Delhi High Court are an important step towards achieving this balance, but future technological developments may require the law to become more specific and comprehensive.
FAQs
Q1. What are personality rights?
Personality rights protect the identifiable aspects of a person’s identity, such as their name, image, voice, likeness and other distinctive characteristics, from unauthorised exploitation.
Q2. Can AI-generated content violate personality rights?
Yes. AI-generated content may violate personality rights when someone’s identity is reproduced or manipulated without consent, particularly when it is used for commercial gain, deception, defamation or other harmful purposes.
Q3. Does India have a specific law governing personality rights?
India does not currently have one comprehensive statute exclusively dealing with personality rights. Courts have developed protection through constitutional and existing legal principles.
Q4. What is a deepfake?
A deepfake is digitally manipulated or AI-generated material that can realistically imitate a person’s face, voice or actions.
Q5. What protection has the Delhi High Court provided against AI misuse?
The Court has granted interim injunctions and issued takedown or blocking directions in cases involving unauthorised use of personality attributes, including AI-generated content and deepfakes.
Q6. Can personality rights restrict freedom of speech?
They can create a legal limitation in certain circumstances, but legitimate criticism, journalism, satire and other protected expression should not automatically be treated as unlawful.
Q7. Why is a clearer legal framework needed?
A clearer framework could provide certainty, accountability and effective remedies for AI-related identity misuse while also protecting legitimate uses of AI and freedom of expression.
