Celebrity Persona Under Siege: Indian Courts Grapple with AI and Personality Rights

New Delhi – A recent flurry of legal actions in Indian courts, led by prominent figures from the entertainment industry, has thrust the doctrine of "personality rights" into the judicial spotlight. High-profile cases involving actors Hrithik Roshan and Chiranjeevi, and playback singer Kumar Sanu, highlight a growing battle by celebrities to protect their name, image, voice, and likeness from unauthorized commercial exploitation, particularly through emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI). This wave of litigation underscores an urgent need for clearer legal frameworks as digital impersonation and deepfake technology become increasingly sophisticated and accessible.

The Delhi High Court, in particular, has become a key battleground for these evolving legal challenges. In a significant order last week, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora granted interim relief to Bollywood actor Hrithik Roshan, directing the removal of online posts that infringed upon his personality rights. However, the court demonstrated a nuanced approach, declining to issue a blanket takedown order for fan pages without hearing their creators, signaling a careful balance between protecting individual rights and preserving freedom of expression online.

Representing Roshan, Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi presented compelling evidence of widespread misuse. "Bags, T-shirts, and other merchandise are being manufactured using my name," he argued, also pointing to the use of altered images and AI-powered chatbots that impersonated the actor. "The defendants are using my voice… similarly, My Lords, the AI chatbox is talking as if it were the plaintiff." This case encapsulates the modern threats to a celebrity's persona, extending beyond simple image use to encompass voice cloning and AI-driven impersonation for commercial gain.

The court's decision in Hritik Roshan v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. directed the defendants to furnish subscriber information for the fan pages, allowing Roshan to implead them and ensure they are heard before any further orders are passed—a move that respects principles of natural justice while acknowledging the infringement.

The Onslaught of AI and the Need for Judicial Intervention

The legal battle is not confined to one star. Just days after Roshan’s hearing, veteran singer Kumar Sanu approached the same bench, seeking comprehensive protection for his "name, voice, vocal style, technique... and likeness." His plea, in Kumar Sanu Bhattacharjee v. Jammable Limited & Ors. , specifically targets the use of AI voice modulation and cloning to imitate his iconic singing style for commercial purposes.

Sanu's counsel highlighted the alarming circulation of distorted and morphed videos, including a fabricated clip on Instagram showing him singing for a political figure. This illustrates the potential for AI-generated content to not only cause commercial harm but also to create reputational damage and spread misinformation by associating celebrities with causes or individuals without their consent. The counsel argued that such unauthorized use is "likely to cause confusion, deception, and dilution among the public," forming the classic basis for a passing-off action, but with a distinctly modern, technological twist.

This trend is not limited to Delhi. A recent interim order from a Hyderabad Civil Court in Konidela Chiranjeevi v/s Mad Monkey Store and Others restrained numerous entities from using the name, titles, and image of Telugu superstar Chiranjeevi for commercial purposes. The court observed that because of his fame, any product associated with his persona would be instantly identified with him, and negative portrayals could cause irreparable damage that "could not be compensated monetarily." The Hyderabad court explicitly noted the use of AI to create morphed images and videos, stating, "This can be used not only for commercial purposes, but also for propagating political ideas or anti-national ideas or for salacious or pornographic purposes."

The Legal Landscape of Personality Rights in India

Personality or publicity rights, which protect an individual’s persona from unauthorized commercial appropriation, are not explicitly codified under a single statute in India. Instead, they are protected through a mosaic of legal principles derived from the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, intellectual property laws (copyright and trademark), and common law torts like passing-off.

Courts have progressively recognized these rights. Landmark judgments have established that a celebrity's persona is a valuable asset that cannot be commercially exploited without permission. The recent cases, however, force the judiciary to confront new and complex questions posed by AI: 1. Voice as a Trademark: Can a unique vocal style, like Kumar Sanu's, be protected as an unregistered trademark or a facet of personality? 2. AI Impersonation: Where is the line between parody or fan tribute and deceptive, commercially exploitative AI-generated content? 3. Liability of Platforms: What is the responsibility of social media and tech platforms that host or facilitate the creation of such infringing content? 4. Evidence and Proof: How can litigants effectively prove the creation and impact of sophisticated deepfakes or voice clones in a court of law?

The courts' willingness to grant interim injunctions in these cases suggests a strong prima facie recognition of the harm caused. The orders emphasize that a celebrity's reputation and goodwill are built over years and their unauthorized association with products or content can cause immediate and lasting damage.

Broader Implications and the Path Forward

The surge in personality rights litigation reflects a critical juncture for Indian law. While celebrities are leading the charge, the underlying issues affect everyone in an era of digital identity. The same AI tools used to clone a singer's voice or create a fake celebrity endorsement can be used to generate non-consensual pornographic material, create political disinformation, or perpetrate financial fraud against ordinary citizens.

Legal professionals must now navigate this nascent field, advising clients on both protecting their own persona and avoiding infringement of others' rights. The jurisprudence emerging from the Delhi and Hyderabad courts will be pivotal in shaping the contours of this right. As Justice Arora’s cautious approach towards fan pages in the Roshan case shows, the courts are tasked with striking a delicate balance. They must provide robust protection against blatant commercial exploitation while avoiding a chilling effect on creativity, commentary, and fan culture, which are integral to the digital ecosystem.

As these cases proceed to trial, the legal community will be watching closely. The final judgments could establish crucial precedents on the application of existing laws to AI-generated content and may signal a need for legislative action to create a more explicit and comprehensive framework for protecting personality rights in the 21st century.

---

Other Key Developments from the Courts This Week

• IRCTC Scam Case: A Delhi Court framed corruption charges against RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav, his wife Rabri Devi, and son Tejashwi Yadav in the IRCTC hotels maintenance contract case. Special Judge Vishal Gogne found sufficient material to proceed to trial, to which all accused pleaded "not guilty."
• Delhi Riots Cases: In ongoing matters related to the 2020 Delhi riots, a court granted 10 days' interim bail to Khalid Saifi on humanitarian grounds. Meanwhile, Umar Khalid's counsel argued that the UAPA "larger conspiracy" case against him is based entirely on delayed witness statements with "not a shred of physical evidence." In a separate development, Sharjeel Imam withdrew his interim bail plea to contest Bihar Assembly elections, stating the matter was best considered by the Supreme Court where his regular bail plea is pending.
• PFI Ban Challenge: In a significant ruling, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that it has jurisdiction under Article 226 to hear the Popular Front of India's (PFI) petition challenging the UAPA Tribunal's decision which upheld the five-year ban on the organization. The court has issued a notice to the Centre.
• Karti Chidambaram's Travel: The Delhi High Court modified a bail condition for Congress MP Karti Chidambaram in the INX Media case, replacing the need for prior court permission to travel abroad with a requirement to provide a two-week prior intimation to the trial court and the investigating agency.