– RAMTILAK PATEL 5th year student,Lovely Professional University
The fast changes in media, tech, entertainment, and online life in India have brought attention to personality rights, something that didn’t used to be a legal topic. Now, identity is worth money for actors, athletes, influencers, and regular people. So, the Indian legal system is being asked more and more to protect people’s names, images, voices, and other things that make them who they are. Even though personality rights aren’t officially written into Indian law yet, courts have started to recognize them. This makes it a new and important area for legal study. Personality rights generally give people control over how their identity is used for money and in public. In the past, Indian law focused on privacy, protecting people from intrusion or unwanted attention. But as advertising, sports, entertainment, and social media became bigger, identity started to be something that could be sold. Because of this, courts have started to protect not just privacy but also the right to control how a person’s image is used for money or shown to the public.
The basis for personality rights in India comes from the Supreme Court’s important case K.S.
Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017). This case said that privacy is a basic right under Article 21.
The case didn’t talk directly about publicity rights, but it did say that people have the right to control their own lives and have dignity. This idea has allowed personality rights to grow. Since then, Indian courts have started to agree that a person’s identity is not just personal but also has economic value. It can’t be used without their permission. The courts’ view on personality rights has become clear in cases involving famous people. In ICC Development v. Arvee
Enterprises (2003), the Delhi High Court made it clear that businesses can’t use players’ images without their permission. This was an early sign that commercial identity rights were being
recognized. Later, the Titan Industries v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012) case supported this idea by stopping the unauthorized use of Amitabh Bachchan and Jaya Bachchan’s images in ads.
Something similar happened in DM Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2010), where the court stopped the selling of unauthorized merchandise and drawings of singer Daler Mehndi. These cases together showed that personality rights were becoming something that Indian law would protect.
In recent years, tech advances have made this issue even more important. Digital platforms have made it easier to copy faces, voices, and images without permission. Deepfakes, AI-made content, videos without consent, and fake endorsements on social media have created new dangers. This was seen when Amitabh Bachchan asked the court in 2022 to stop his voice and
image from being used without permission on digital platforms. The court agreed,
understanding how serious it is to misuse someone’s identity online. Similarly, Anil Kapoor sued in 2023 to protect his image, dialogues, and even the way he acts. This suggests that personality rights now go beyond the traditional definition.
But, the increase in personality rights also brings up hard legal questions. One big problem is balancing a person’s control over their identity with the constitutional right to freedom of
speech. Creative works like movies, biographies, commentaries, memes, and satires often show public figures. So, courts have to decide when these showings are acceptable speech and when they become illegal use of someone’s image for money. Since there aren’t clear legal rules,
these decisions are often made on a case-by-case basis. This leads to uncertainty and different standards .Another problem comes from how personality rights relate to intellectual property law. Copyright protects creative works, and trademark law allows names or signatures to be registered. But neither of these fully deals with the unauthorized commercial use of a person’s image. Lawsuits against deceptive endorsements offer protection but can’t solve all identity- based arguments. Because of this, personality rights in India are spread across different legal ideas. This makes them hard to put into practice and often makes the response reactive instead of preventive.
So, it’s very important to have a law that recognizes personality rights. India doesn’t have a specific law that says what personality rights are, what uses are allowed, or what standard punishments are. Without this, courts have to interpret rights in different ways, and people
have to depend on temporary court orders instead of stable legal protection. Also, it’s not clear if a person’s identity can be protected after they die and, if so, for how long. Courts have
different views on this depending on the situation.The problems are made worse by how fast and anonymous the online world is. It’s hard to enforce personality rights against users who are anonymous, accounts based in other countries, or content that is shared quickly online. It’s also unclear how to calculate damages for identity misuse. Courts don’t have clear ways to measure the economic harm or damage to reputation caused by online impersonation.
Even with these limits, the way personality rights are going in India shows that people are understanding more and more that identity is both personal and worth money. As famous
people, athletes, influencers, and even regular people face more dangers of misuse—through AI cloning, digital collages, fake ads, or unregulated merchandise—the legal system has started to respond quickly. But, real protection needs a more complete, written approach that clearly defines rights, has ways to put them into practice, and balances those rights with freedom of speech and public interest.
In conclusion, personality rights in India are changing fast but are still in an early stage. Court decisions have created a strong base, especially in agreeing that it’s important to protect identity in a digital and commercial world. But, the lack of a written legal structure still causes uncertainty. As tech gets better at copying identity and as commercial use increases, India needs to create a complete legal structure that protects both the dignity and money-related interests of people. Only then can personality rights
