Personality Rights against AI Deepfakes

Introduction

From Black and White to Technicolour; Gramophone to Streaming Music on Apps ; Technology has always played an important role in the entertainment industry and has changed the way we create,consume & distribute content. Now, with Artificial Intelligence, technology has a profound impact on creativity and communication across the globe  and has brought a new life to movies, music & other media. However, it’s not all sunshine and roses. The emergence of AI Generated fake videos replicating human faces, voices and even mannerism known as Deepfakes has blurred the line between real and fake media leading to security issues especially impacting public figures and celebrities whose social image & reputation possesses commercial value. 

There is a legal vacuum as there is no legislation against Deepfakes protecting personality rights in India. Despite this, The Judiciary, most notably the Delhi High Court has emerged as a saviour of personality rights. In a span of a few years, Actors, Musicians and even Cricketers have obtained injunctions against AI Deepfakes.  Recent decisions by Delhi High Court in cases Arjun Kapoor vs  Artist Booking Company & Ors (April, 2026) and Sonakshi Sinha vs Character Technologies Inc. (March, 2026) has evolved the legal landscape of personality rights in India.

Personality Rights 

Personality rights are legal rights particularly vested with celebrities and public figures, protecting them from commercial exploitation of their name, face, voice, and other attributes. This concept originated in the USA as the “Right of Publicity,” which has since been adopted and adapted by Indian courts.The very moment one hears “Thappad se darr nahi lagta sahab, Pyaar se lagta hai,” it transports us in the movie Dabangg and we can see Sonakshi Sinha in a sari and hear her voice . This is not just a scene from a movie but a “brand” or “personality.” However, due to the rise of AI and the emergence of Deepfakes, this personality is threatened. Anybody can use your name, face, and voice to create a fake and synthetic narrative you never signed up for. Just because someone is in the public eye doesn’t mean their persona is public property.

There is no specific legislation on personality rights in India, but the concept finds a basis in the Constitution of India, the Copyright Act 1957, the Information Technology Act 2000, and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees personal life and liberty. Right to Privacy was recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 by the Supreme Court in KS Puttaswamy vs UOI (2017). This serves as the basis for protection against unauthorized use of digital identity. Section 57 of the Copyright Act,1957 grants performers moral rights over their performances, including protection from distortion or mutilation that would harm their honour or reputation. Section 38 B, added in 2012, addresses performers’ rights in broadcasts and communication of performances. However, the word performer does not include celebrities or public figures. Section 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 criminalizes identity theft, Section 66D punishes cheating by impersonation using computer resources, Section 66E addresses non-consensual capture and publication of private images and Sections 67, 67A and 67B govern obscene content transmitted electronically. Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 regulates the processing of personal data including biometric data which is an essential part of creating a Deepfake.

Indian Jurisprudence

Indian courts have, across a series of decisions, have recognised personality rights as a distinct and enforceable legal right. The Auto Shankar case established the groundwork for personality rights in India. The Supreme Court in R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N (Auto Shankar Case) upheld the “right to be left alone” against unlicensed misuse as part of Right to Privacy under Article 21. In Titan Industries Ltd vs Ramkumar Jewellers, the Delhi High Court defined Right to Publicity as the right to control commercial use of human identity. In Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions, Madras High Court held that once a person becomes a celebrity, any unlawful use of their persona is illegal, regardless of whether it causes public confusion.

A drumbeat of decisions since 2023 has expanded the frontier of personality rights exponentially. This includes decisions involving Anil Kapoor (2023), Jackie Shroff (2024), Arijit Singh (2024, Bombay High Court), Aishwarya Rai Bachchan (2025) and others. The Arjun Kapoor and Sonakshi Sinha cases are the most recent additions in the list. 

Sonakshi Sinha v. Character Technologies Inc. & Ors.

A complaint was filed in Delhi High Court by the famous actress Sonakshi Sinha seeking protection of her personality rights against a set of defendants consisting of AI chatbot platform operators, e-commerce websites and unidentified ‘John Doe’ entities. The AI chatbot platform operators were impersonating her by hosting multiple chatbots and creating a false impression that users were communicating directly with her. Simultaneously, E-commerce websites and ‘John Doe’ entities were using her likeness to make commercial profits and persona like name,face,voice & images to sell merchandise linking her to endorsements she never had knowledge about. Some of these were even generating obscene and objectionable content using AI causing damage to her reputation.

Justice Jyoti Singh heard the plaint & found a prima facie case and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction. The court explicitly restrained the defendants from using Sonakshi Sinha’s name, face, voice, image, likeness, unique style of discourse and delivery and any other attributes which are exclusively associated with her. They were banned from making, selling or advertising anything that uses her ‘personality’ to make profit & popularity without her consent. This ban covers everywhere including the digital ecosystem consisting of Artificial Intelligence and Generative Artificial Intelligence tools, Deepfake and face morphing technologies, Voice Cloning, Metaverse environments and all formats and mediums. By explicitly covering “all formats and mediums” the court acknowledged technology is evolving more rapidly than ever before and reinforced the protection of the actress’s right over her persona. 

The court recognized two precedents of the same court, Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store and Others (2024) and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com and Others (2025) to reiterate the principle that ‘when attributes of famous personalities are used unauthorisedly, it leads not only to commercial detriment but also impacts his/her rights to privacy/personality and live with dignity.’

The court further held that any AI-generated content set in an obscene backdrop, depicting the actress in inappropriate clothing, or falsely portraying her as endorsing brands without authorization, violates her personality rights and must be taken down from the public domain within 36 hours.

Arjun Kapoor v. Artist Booking Company & Ors

Bollywood actor Arjun Kapoor approached the Delhi High Court seeking comprehensive protection of his personality and publicity rights. He was aggrieved by the exploitation of his identity across digital platforms including :-

• unauthorized sale of merchandise including T-shirts, mugs, and posters  bearing his image and name without licence

• fraudulent impersonation for commercial event bookings and fake endorsements, causing financial harm to third parties who were deceived in the actor’s name

• creation and widespread circulation of AI-generated deepfake videos, some of which were sexually explicit and grossly derogatory in nature.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed an ad-interim ex parte injunction upon finding a prima facie case  was made out. The court observed that a celebrity ‘spends many years of hard work to build their reputation’, and such reputation forms a part of the actor’s personality. Arjun Kapoor had built an ‘exclusive place for himself in the film world’ through years of dedication and creative labour. The court said “The tabulated depiction of various infringing activities alleged to be carried out by the defendants clearly demonstrate that these defendants are unauthorizedly misappropriating the personality and publicity rights exclusively vested with the plaintiff. It is also clear that such defendants are wilfully indulging in such infringing activities solely for the purposes of unlawful financial gains, and thereby unjustly enriching themselves”. 

The court directed digital platforms, Google and Meta to take down all infringing URLs and disclose basic subscriber information linked to offending accounts so that the actual perpetrators could be identified and pursued. The order also restrained unknown and unidentified parties under the John Doe principle. 

The court also held that denying relief at the interim stage would cause irreparable injury to the actor, since damage to personality and reputation in the digital age is often incalculable and not easily remedied by mere monetary compensation.

Comparative Analysis 

Both cases, Sonakshi Sinha and Arjun Kapoor applied the same three part prima facie test i.e unauthorized use, commercial exploitation, and irreparable harm to grant ex parte ad interim injunctions. But the Sonakshi Sinha case is more significant as the injunction granted by Delhi High Court is technologically neutral and broader in scope covering AI, Generative AI, Machine , Deepfakes, AI Chatbots, Face Morphing and any other mediums and formats. The 36 hour deadline to take down AI generated content sets reflects AI generated content like Deepfakes can spread exponentially creating a digital record that may never be fully erased. 

The Arjun Kapoor case is particularly significant as the court recognized sexually explicit Deepfake content as ‘potentially damaging beyond repair’ & elevated it above ordinary reputational harm. This matters because the irreparable harm is an essential ingredient of the interim injunction test and is typically the most contested but here the court treats the category itself as sufficient proof.

Both cases converge on consent being the threshold, not the exception. No form of transformation whether aesthetic, parodic, satirical, or commercial permits the use of a public figure’s name, image, voice, or likeness without authorization.

Legal Vacuum 

India has one of the world’s largest digital populations, a thriving entertainment industry, and a rapidly growing AI ecosystem and yet there is no specific law that defines, prohibits, or provides structured remedies for the creation and distribution of AI-generated Deepfakes. Due to this, the entire burden of protecting individuals against AI-generated identity exploitation has fallen on the judiciary. Courts can remedy harm after it occurs but they cannot mandate preventive measures.  The court can issue injunctions but they cannot create the entire law on personality rights. Moreover, each celebrity who obtains an injunction must individually litigate their own protection, at considerable cost and time, while the system that enables Deepfakes generation continues to operate without any legal constraint. Additionally, the courts can order take-down but they cannot resolve cross-border enforcement against foreign AI platforms as Deepfake content is frequently created in one jurisdiction and hosted or consumed in another. There are no posthumous rights also available to Public figures and celebrities. The Delhi High Court held in Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi (2023) that personality rights lapse upon death, leaving deceased celebrities without protection against AI cloning. 

Globally, there is a stark contrast. The United States’  Defiance Act (2024) and State of California’s AB 602 specifically target non-consensual intimate Deepfakes, while states like Tennessee have passed the ELVIS Act (2024) protecting against AI voice cloning extending to musicians a targeted personality right. The European Union’s AI Act classifies certain Deepfakes generating systems as high-risk and mandates transparency and watermarking obligations on developers.

Way Forward 

The most urgent legislative need is a dedicated Deepfake Prohibition and Liability Act that defines AI generated media and Deepfakes, criminalizes non-consensual Deepfakes creation and distribution, establishes civil remedies including statutory damages, mandates AI watermarking and disclosure obligations on developers and platforms and establishes a separate adjudicatory mechanism & penalizes wrongdoers. 

Alongside this, India requires a Right of Personality under Intellectual property law, modeled on like the statutes passed by California and Tennessee, extending protection to name, voice, likeness, and digital persona and including posthumous rights for public figures and celebrities. 

The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology should also mandate prior consent  mechanisms for AI systems trained on individuals’ data  and require platforms to implement Deepfakes detection tools instead of take-downs. 

India must negotiate enforcement agreements addressing cross-border Deepfakes creation and hosting, since most harmful content may originate beyond jurisdiction. 

Conclusion

The cases of Arjun Kapoor and Sonakshi Sinha are more than celebrity disputes. The Delhi High Court has affirmed that a person’s identity is not freely available for AI training and content generation and commercial exploitation of ‘personality’ without consent is actionable regardless of the technology employed and platforms facilitating such exploitation are not immune. The irreversible reputational damage caused by explicit Deepfakes mandates immediate intervention. 

At the same time, due to lack of any legislation and statute, each new victim has to individually approach the court, spend considerable time and money obtaining relief, and then face the practical challenge of enforcing orders against anonymous defendants and foreign platforms. There is an urgent need of instituting a comprehensive statute addressing Deepfakes creation and distribution, codifying the right of personality, and establishing  enforcement mechanisms. This would not only protect individuals but also lay down boundaries regarding use of person’s data to the AI platforms. The courts will have to bear the burden of an injunction at a time but ultimately adjudication alone cannot accomplish what a legislation can.

Author: Shreyasee Banga, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

Caselaws

1. Arjun Kapoor v. Artist Booking Company & Ors,CS(COMM) 454/2026, Delhi High Court

2. Sonakshi Sinha v. Character Technologies Inc. & Ors, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 1177,Delhi High Court

3. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com & Ors, CS(COMM) 612/2025, Delhi High Court.

4. Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf  v. Peppy Store & Ors, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3698, Delhi High Court.

5. Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP & Ors, IPR SUIT (L) NO. 23443/2024, Bombay High Court.

6. Anil Kapoor v. Dilip Chhabria & Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914 , Delhi High Court.

7. Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi ,2023 LawSuit(Del) 2361,Delhi High Court.

8. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, Supreme Court.

9. Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions, 2015 (1) LW 701, Madras High Court.

10. Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jeweller ,2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del), Delhi High Court.

11. R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N.,(1994) 6 SCC 632, Supreme Court.

Articles

1. ‘India’s Evolving Personality Rights Law | Judicial Protection from Deepfakes & Misuse’, SCC Times, Available at: https://www.scconline.com.

2. “Every Content Can’t Be Disparaging: Delhi High Court Remarks In Arjun Kapoor’s Personality Suit,” LiveLaw , Available at :  https://www.livelaw.in. 

3. Delhi High Court protects Sonakshi Sinha’s Personality Rights; directs take down of AI- generated Deepfakes, SCC Times, Available at : https://www.scconline.com.

4. Personality Rights in India: Legal Framework and Judicial Evolution, Bhatt & Joshi Associates,  Available at: https://bhattandjoshiassociates.com.

5. “Delhi HC Protects Arjun Kapoor’s Personality Rights Against AI Deepfakes,” AnalystIP  Available at: https://analystip.com.