The rise of AI-driven deepfakes has quietly but rapidly pushed India into a new legal frontier, where identity itself has become vulnerable to replication, manipulation, and commercial misuse. What began as isolated instances of fake advertisements and cloned voices has now evolved into a widespread digital challenge, forcing celebrities to turn to courts to reclaim control over their own likeness.
At the centre of this shift lies the concept of personality rights—the right of an individual to control how their name, image, voice, likeness, or even distinctive traits are commercially used. In India, however, these rights are not codified under a single, dedicated law. Instead, they have been shaped gradually through judicial interpretation, drawing from constitutional protections such as the right to privacy under Article 21, as well as principles from intellectual property and copyright law.
For years, courts recognised that a celebrity’s identity carries economic value, and unauthorised use amounts to exploitation. But the scale and nature of misuse changed dramatically with the rise of artificial intelligence. Deepfakes blurred the line between real and fabricated content, making it possible to convincingly recreate voices, faces, and expressions without consent. This technological leap transformed personality rights from a niche legal issue into an urgent and evolving concern.
A major turning point came in 2022, when Amitabh Bachchan approached the Delhi High Court after discovering widespread unauthorised use of his identity across fake apps, merchandise, and endorsements. The court responded by granting broad interim protection, restraining the misuse of his name, voice, and persona. This case set a precedent, signalling that courts were willing to take a strong stance against digital exploitation.
Soon after, Anil Kapoor expanded the scope of legal protection by asserting rights not just over his image but also over intangible aspects of his identity, including his voice and his iconic expression “Jhakaas.” The court’s decision in his favour demonstrated that personality rights extend beyond physical likeness to encompass elements that define a public persona.
As AI-generated content became more sophisticated, the urgency of such cases increased. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan moved the Delhi High Court against websites and platforms using her identity through manipulated and AI-generated content. The court ordered the immediate removal of such material, reinforcing the idea that digital misuse requires swift intervention. Similar relief was granted to Abhishek Bachchan, with courts directing platforms to take down infringing content and block access to offending links.
These cases collectively marked a shift in legal thinking. Personality rights were no longer limited to preventing unauthorised endorsements; they became a tool to protect digital identity and personal dignity in an era where replication can occur at scale and speed.
The trend quickly expanded beyond a few high-profile cases. Actors such as Jackie Shroff, Karan Johar, Suniel Shetty, and Vivek Oberoi approached courts over unauthorised use of their identity in apps, promotional content, and social media. In the music industry, singer Kumar Sanu raised concerns about AI cloning his voice and singing style. Even figures outside entertainment, such as Gautam Gambhir, sought legal protection against deepfake misuse. In each instance, courts granted interim relief, often directing the removal of content and restraining further misuse.
The growing number of cases highlights a broader pattern. What initially appeared as isolated violations has now evolved into a coordinated legal push, with public figures increasingly relying on the judiciary to safeguard their identity in the digital space. Courts, in turn, are actively shaping the contours of personality rights through case-by-case rulings.
However, this approach also reveals a gap. Without a dedicated statutory framework, enforcement remains reactive rather than preventive. Each case requires individual litigation, and outcomes depend on judicial interpretation rather than clear legislative guidelines. This creates uncertainty, particularly as technology continues to evolve faster than legal systems can adapt.
The implications extend beyond celebrities. As AI tools become more accessible, the risk of identity misuse is no longer limited to public figures. Ordinary individuals can also face similar violations, raising questions about privacy, consent, and digital ownership in everyday life.
India is now at a critical juncture where legal doctrine is being shaped in real time. Courts are laying down principles that recognise identity as a form of property and dignity, but the absence of a unified law means the framework remains fragmented.
In this emerging landscape, the courtroom has become the primary arena where identity is defended and redefined. As deepfake technology continues to advance, the need for a comprehensive legal structure will likely become more pressing. Until then, personality rights in India will continue to evolve through judicial decisions, one case at a time, reflecting the ongoing tension between technological innovation and the protection of individual identity.
