The New Frontiers of Truth: Indian Courts and States Grapple with AI, Personality Rights, and Disinformation

A series of recent, high-stakes legal and policy developments are forcing a critical re-examination of how India regulates online speech, protects individual identity, and defines truth in the digital age. From the Delhi High Court's landmark order protecting actor Jaya Bachchan's personality rights against AI-generated misuse to the Karnataka government's controversial plan for a bill tackling "fake news," the legal and legislative landscape is scrambling to keep pace with technological disruption. These events signal a new chapter in the complex tug-of-war between free expression, individual rights, and state control over online narratives.

Delhi High Court Fortifies the "Right to Personality" in the Age of AI

In a significant ruling with far-reaching implications for intellectual property and media law, the Delhi High Court has granted an injunction protecting the personality rights of veteran actor and politician Jaya Bachchan. The order, passed by Justice Manmeet Pritam Arora, directs the blocking of AI-generated content and the removal of unauthorized merchandise that misuses her name, image, and persona across various websites, social media platforms, and e-commerce stores.

Bachchan's suit targeted entities creating and disseminating infringing material, naming tech giants like Google, Meta, Amazon, and eBay as defendants. Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi, representing Bachchan, highlighted the "brazen" nature of the infringement, which included unauthorized merchandise and, most notably, AI-generated videos misusing her likeness.

This case marks a crucial evolution in the jurisprudence of personality rights in India, extending established principles to confront the novel challenges posed by artificial intelligence. While the court has previously granted similar protections to other members of the Bachchan family—Amitabh, Aishwarya Rai, and Abhishek—this instance specifically addresses the threat of AI-generated deepfakes and synthetic media, setting a vital precedent for public figures seeking to control their digital likeness.

Interestingly, the Court exhibited nuance by declining to pass an immediate injunction against a company selling posters of the 1973 film Abhimaan on Amazon. Justice Arora reasoned that the copyright in the film likely resides with the producer, and the poster was not as "brazen" an infringement as other materials. This distinction opens a complex debate on the intersection of copyright and personality rights: where does a producer's right to exploit a film's assets end, and an actor's right to control their persona begin? Sethi’s argument that copyright does not "trump personality rights" suggests that this will be a fertile ground for future litigation. The legal team from Anand and Naik, including Pravin Anand and Ameet Naik, underscored the growing need for a robust legal framework to safeguard personal identity from unauthorized digital exploitation.

Karnataka's Proposed Bill: A Necessary Tool or a Constitutional Minefield?

While the judiciary grapples with individual rights, the executive branch in Karnataka is charting a more interventionist course. Priyank Kharge, the state's Minister for Information Technology, announced that a bill to tackle fake news and disinformation is expected to be tabled in the upcoming Winter session of the Karnataka Assembly.

Speaking at a policy dialogue organized by Ikigai Law and the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Kharge emphasized the danger posed by intentionally corrosive disinformation, a threat he says is "magnified by technology, especially now, with the advent of accessible and affordable AI tools." He stated, “A single click can spark chaos. Hence, we want to bring in laws to rein in misinformation, disinformation, malinformation and fake news.”

The proposed legislation aims not only to "name and shame" individuals who spread falsehoods but also to regulate platforms that amplify such content, holding them "indirectly responsible." While Kharge assured that the state has no intention of curbing free speech, creativity, or satire, the proposal has ignited a firestorm of debate within the legal community about its constitutional validity and practical enforceability.

At the same event, a panel of legal experts raised profound concerns about the bill's potential for overreach. Manu Kulkarni, Partner at Poovayya & Co, identified a critical flaw in the government-led approach: "the elephant in the room is that the government wants to be the arbiter of truth. That's a little difficult to digest." He pointed to the Central government's fact-check unit, which was struck down by the Bombay High Court, as a cautionary tale.

Alok Kumar Prasanna, Co-Founder of Vidhi Center for Legal Policy, argued that the root of the problem is a societal and educational failure to promote critical thinking. "The hard solution is, how do you get people to think critically?" he remarked, suggesting that top-down legislative fixes may be misguided. The panel discussed whether state-level regulation could effectively police global online platforms and the inherent risk of such laws being misused to stifle dissent. Dhanya Rajendran, Co-Founder of The News Minute, warned that even well-intentioned laws are vulnerable to abuse, noting that such a law could be weaponized to file cases against journalists critical of the government.

The Broader Legal and Corporate Context

These developments are set against a backdrop of significant activity in the Indian corporate legal space, where law firms are navigating complex, high-value transactions. In a landmark deal, Khaitan & Co advised Brookfield Asset Management on the $1.5 billion sale of Arliga Ecoworld Business Parks to Brookfield India REIT, the largest REIT transaction in India to date. The firm's extensive role involved complex restructuring through a scheme of arrangement, comprehensive due diligence, and negotiation of transaction documents, showcasing the sophisticated legal architecture required for modern M&A.

Separately, Anagram Partners , led by Shuva Mandal, advised Religare Enterprises on securing approvals for a ₹1,500 crore preferential allotment of warrants, a critical capital-raising exercise for the diversified financial services group. These deals highlight the robust health of India's corporate legal market but also underscore the stable, predictable legal frameworks that capital markets rely on—a stability that could be challenged by broad, ambiguous regulations on speech and information.

Conclusion: A Crossroads for Digital India

India stands at a critical juncture. The Delhi High Court's order in the Jaya Bachchan case is a necessary and welcome step in modernizing IP law to protect individuals from the depredations of unchecked technology. It affirms that a person's identity—their voice, likeness, and name—is a proprietary asset that cannot be co-opted by AI without consequence.

However, the Karnataka government's proposed anti-disinformation bill represents a more perilous path. While the goal of combating fake news is laudable, the proposed mechanism—empowering the state to define and police "truth"—raises serious constitutional questions about freedom of speech under Article 19. The concerns voiced by legal experts about the potential for misuse and the creation of a chilling effect on legitimate expression cannot be ignored.

As these two narratives unfold, the Indian legal system is being forced to draw new lines in the digital sand. One path, illuminated by the courts, focuses on empowering individuals with rights to protect their digital selves. The other, pursued by the state legislature, focuses on empowering the government with the authority to regulate the flow of information. The challenge for legal professionals, policymakers, and civil society will be to find a balance that combats genuine harm without sacrificing the fundamental principles of a free and open democracy.