Indian Courts Confront AI Threat as Celebrities Litigate to Protect Personality Rights

MUMBAI/NEW DELHI – A wave of litigation initiated by prominent Indian celebrities is forcing the country's judiciary to confront the burgeoning legal challenges posed by artificial intelligence, particularly in the realm of personality rights. The recent lawsuit filed by Bollywood superstar Akshay Kumar in the Bombay High Court, seeking a sweeping injunction against the unauthorized use of his likeness and voice by AI-driven tools, underscores a critical and evolving intersection of technology, intellectual property, and individual dignity.

Kumar’s legal action is not an isolated event but the latest in a series of similar petitions from high-profile figures. Actors Hrithik Roshan, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Amitabh Bachchan, and veteran singer Asha Bhosle, among others, have all recently approached courts, signalling a growing alarm within the entertainment industry over the unregulated proliferation of deepfakes, AI-generated voice clones, and other forms of digital impersonation. These cases are collectively shaping the jurisprudence on personality rights in the digital age, compelling courts to articulate protections against novel forms of infringement.

The Legal Onslaught Against Digital Impersonation

In his suit before the Bombay High Court, Akshay Kumar, represented by Senior Advocate Dr. Birendra Saraf, sought a broad "John Doe" injunction. This legal instrument is aimed at restraining a host of unknown entities from infringing upon his personality and publicity rights. The plea specifically targets the misuse of his name, screen persona, image, voice, and distinctive mannerisms through AI-generated content, counterfeit merchandise, and deceptive advertising across social media and e-commerce platforms.

Dr. Saraf's submissions before Justice Arif S. Doctor highlighted the tangible harm caused by this misuse. He presented instances including a doctored film trailer falsely depicting Kumar as Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, which amassed nearly two million views before its removal. Another example cited was a website offering an "AI Akshay Kumar V2 Voice" feature, allowing users to generate speech in the actor's distinct vocal style.

The core of the argument rests on the potential for significant reputational damage and the risk to public order. As Dr. Saraf argued, "This content has very serious consequences. It is not only a threat to him and his family but to the public at large." The concern is that fabricated clips attributed to a public figure of Kumar's stature could incite immediate public reaction, making subsequent clarifications ineffective. Justice Doctor, acknowledging the gravity of the issue, granted an ad-interim order to protect Kumar, noting that such infringement impacts not only the individual's stature but also has wider consequences.

Defining and Defending Personality Rights

These recent cases are forcing a clearer judicial articulation of "personality rights" in India, a concept not explicitly codified in a single statute but derived from the Right to Privacy and the Right of Publicity. The Delhi High Court, in a previous order protecting Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, provided a crucial definition that is now frequently cited:

“Personality Rights of individuals, simply put, entail the right to control and protect the exploitation of one’s image, name, likeness or other attributes of the individuals’ personality, in addition to the commercial gains that can be derived from the same.”

This definition encapsulates the dual nature of these rights:

• The Right of Publicity: This protects the commercial value inherent in a person's identity, preventing unauthorized use in advertising, endorsements, or merchandise.
• The Right to Privacy: This shields an individual from non-commercial intrusions that harm their dignity and autonomy, such as the creation of deepfake videos or false representations.

The courts are increasingly recognizing that AI-driven misuse attacks both facets simultaneously. The unauthorized use of a celebrity's voice for a commercial voiceover infringes on their right of publicity, while a deepfake video placing them in a false or compromising context violates their right to privacy and dignity. In an order related to actor Suniel Shetty, the High Court observed that the unauthorized creation of deepfake images "constitutes a grave infringement not only of his personality rights but also of his right to live with dignity."

Broader Implications for Legal Practice and Intermediary Liability

The legal strategies employed in these cases offer important takeaways for practitioners in intellectual property and media law. The use of John Doe orders, which are pre-emptive injunctions against unknown defendants, has become a vital tool to combat the anonymity and rapid dissemination of infringing content online. By naming social media platforms and e-commerce sites as parties, as Hrithik Roshan has done in his suit, the litigation also brings the issue of intermediary liability to the forefront, questioning the responsibility of platforms in policing such content.

These developments signal a critical evolution in legal practice, demanding that lawyers not only understand traditional IP concepts but also possess a sophisticated grasp of the underlying technology enabling these infringements. The arguments presented in court increasingly involve technical explanations of AI, deepfake generation, and the mechanics of viral content spread, pushing the boundaries of traditional legal advocacy.

For the judiciary, these cases present the challenge of balancing the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression with the individual's right to privacy, dignity, and control over their persona. While protecting individuals from malicious impersonation is paramount, the courts must also craft orders that are precise enough to avoid chilling legitimate forms of parody, satire, or commentary.

As more celebrities turn to the courts for protection, the resulting body of case law will be instrumental in establishing a legal framework for governing AI-generated content in India. The outcomes of these high-profile suits will likely set influential precedents, guiding how the law adapts to protect individual identity in an era where the lines between real and synthetic are increasingly blurred.