Protecting Celebrity Identity: Personality Rights in India

Recently, there has been a growing uproar over personality rights in India, as courts are increasingly approached by celebrities to protect their image, likeness, and persona from misuse through AI, deepfakes, and digital manipulation. The Delhi High Court recently restrained the unauthorised exploitation of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan’s identity, while a similar petition by Abhishek Bachchan also got a favorable order. In this edition of Nyaaya Weekly, we will discuss the scope and evolution of personality rights in India.

In modern India, the expansion of mass media, including films, television, sports, and social media, has given rise to a culture dominated by celebrities. These public figures are shaped, promoted, and sustained by media narratives that amplify their persona in the public imagination. The emergence of celebrity culture has coincided with rapid consumerism, creating a mutually reinforcing dynamic where public fame translates into substantial commercial value. 

The evolution of personality rights in India reflects a dynamic interplay between media, commerce, technology, and law. Although there is no standalone legislation, the combination of constitutional protections under Article 21, statutory safeguards through copyright and trademark law, self-regulatory mechanisms like ASCI, and progressive judicial interpretation has created a robust framework for protecting both the dignitary and commercial interests of public figures.

What are Publicity rights or Image Rights?

A celebrity’s persona often becomes more financially significant than their professional earnings, evident in endorsement deals, merchandising, and brand associations. This economic significance of fame forms the foundation for what are known as publicity rights or image rights. These rights allow celebrities to control and profit from the commercial use of their identity including their name, likeness, voice, and overall persona while preventing unauthorized exploitation. The concept of personality rights has thus become increasingly relevant in India, especially with the rise of social media, digital advertising, and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), which pose new challenges in protecting a celebrity’s identity. 

What is a Personality?

Before delving into the legal framework, it is important to understand the concept of “personality.” A personality refers to an individual who, through public recognition, acquires both social and commercial value. This includes actors, singers, authors, artists, television personalities, politicians, and business leaders whose work, public statements, or image attract attention and confer status. In essence, the public perception elevates an individual into a “personality,” which carries distinct dignitary and commercial significance. 

What are the Governing Statutes and Framework?

In India, personality rights are not codified under a single statute but are protected through a combination of constitutional guarantees, statutory provisions, and judicial recognition. At the broadest level, Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been interpreted to include dignity, autonomy, and privacy, thereby protecting control over one’s persona. Courts have consistently held that the unauthorized commercial use of a celebrity’s name, image, or likeness violates these fundamental principles by infringing upon both personal integrity and economic interests. This constitutional protection is reinforced by specific statutes. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 2(qq) defines a “performer” to include actors, singers, musicians, dancers, and others engaged in performances, while Section 38(3) grants performers the exclusive right to control the recording, reproduction, and communication of their performances during the term of their rights; unauthorized acts such as reproducing or distributing a performance without consent constitute infringement, safeguarding both creative expression and the commercial value attached to a performer’s public identity. Similarly, the Trade Marks Act, 1999 recognizes names, signatures, and likenesses as registrable marks. Sections 14 and 35 restrict the registration or use of names of living persons, or of persons deceased within twenty years, without consent, thereby preventing misappropriation and protecting the goodwill associated with a celebrity’s persona. Taken together, the constitutional protection under Article 21 and statutory safeguards under copyright and trademark law underscore the dual nature of personality rights in India, which both preserve individual dignity and allow controlled commercialization of one’s identity.

Similarly, the Trademarks Act, 1999 provides an additional layer of protection by recognizing names and marks as property capable of registration and commercial control. Sections 14 and 35 of the Act restrict the registration of a trademark that consists of or falsely suggests a connection with the name or representation of any living person, or of a person who has died within the twenty years prior to the application date, unless the applicant obtains the written consent of such person (or legal representatives, in the case of the deceased). At the same time, the Act preserves the right of individuals and businesses to make the bona fide use of their own names in trade. Notable examples include Shah Rukh Khan, who trademarked “SRK” and “King Khan”; MS Dhoni, who registered “Captain Cool”; Amitabh Bachchan, Kajol, Ajay Devgn, Alia Bhatt, and Virat Kohli, all securing trademarks of their names; and Sachin Tendulkar and Sanjeev Kapoor, who protected their initials and brand identities.

In the advertising domain, the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) Code operates as a self-regulatory mechanism to prevent unfair exploitation of celebrity identity. Clause 4.2 of the Code explicitly prohibits leveraging a person’s name, initials, or goodwill in advertisements in a manner that misrepresents or harms their image. 

4.2. Advertisements shall not make unjustifiable use of the name or initials of any other firm, company or institution, nor take unfair advantage of the goodwill attached to the trademark or symbol of another firm, its product or the goodwill acquired by its advertising campaign.

In Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd. (2024) and Akshay Tanna v. John Doe & Ors. (2024), the court recognized that the plaintiff, Karan Johar, has garnered immense goodwill and celebrity status in India and globally, with his name itself functioning as a valuable brand. The plaintiff asserted that the defendants used his name without consent in relation to a film, aiming to commercially exploit his reputation and goodwill, thereby unfairly enriching themselves. The film, described as sleazy and in poor taste, allegedly denigrated the plaintiff and harmed his ability to control the commercial use of his identity. The court acknowledged that well-known individuals possess rights of personality and publicity, granting them legal authority to prevent unauthorized association of their name with any product or media, consistent with ASCI Clause 4.2’s prohibition against misrepresentation and unjustifiable use of another’s goodwill.

Collectively, these legal instruments, although indirect, establish a framework to protect both the commercial and dignitary interests of individuals whose public persona carries economic and social significance.

What are the key judicial stances and landmark cases related to this issue?

Courts have played a critical role in shaping the scope and application of personality rights, often bridging gaps left by the absence of dedicated legislation. 

The landmark Supreme Court judgment in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), popularly known as the Auto Shankar case, firmly recognized the right to privacy as implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that an individual has the right to safeguard the privacy of their name, likeness, and life story from unauthorized use, whether for commercial or non-commercial purposes. This recognition laid the groundwork for the evolution of personality rights in India, establishing that a person’s identity and personal attributes form an integral part of their right to privacy.

Building on this principle, the Delhi High Court in ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises (2003) held that the right to publicity emanates from the right to privacy under Article 21, and inheres only in individuals, not in events, corporations, or non-living entities. The Court clarified that publicity rights protect the commercial value of an individual’s persona including their name, likeness, voice, or traits and prevent unauthorized appropriation for profit. It rejected the claim that organizers of cricketing events could monopolize publicity rights in the “persona” of the event, holding instead that such protection can only vest in human beings who achieve recognition through the event, not in the event itself. The Court emphasized that attempts to transfer publicity rights from individuals to corporations or organizers would violate Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Further, while trademarks, copyright, and unfair competition law protect event logos, mascots, and descriptive terms, they do not create a right of publicity in the event. Thus, the ruling firmly demarcated publicity rights as personal rights of individuals, while limiting organizers to traditional IP protections for their symbols and branding.

In D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House (2010), the court held that the unauthorized use of singer Daler Mehndi’s likeness on dolls amounted to infringement, even without a registered trademark, emphasizing that the commercial value of a celebrity’s persona lies in their popularity and reputation, and its unauthorized exploitation for profit is impermissible. The plaintiff argued that the commercial potential of such a character flows directly from the artist’s fame, which attracts customers based on perceived attributes arising from their reputation. In support, reliance was placed on Star India Private Limited v. Leo Burnett (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2003), where the Bombay High Court clarified that character merchandising involves the exploitation of fictional characters or celebrity fame through the licensing of their identity or attributes; fictional characters are creations protected by copyright, while celebrities are living individuals who have attained fame in their respective fields. The Court further held that character merchandising is possible only when the character or celebrity has achieved independent public recognition and an identity beyond the original context, thereby becoming a commercial commodity in its own right capable of authorized exploitation.

Similarly, in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012), the Delhi High Court restrained unauthorized use of Amitabh Bachchan and Jaya Bachchan’s images on billboards. Courts have also protected film and character rights, as seen in Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions (2015), which restrained the use of the film title “Main Hoon Rajnikanth,” recognizing the actor’s persona as legally protectable. 

For example, in Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Negi (2022) and Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2023), the courts extended protection of personality rights to digital platforms, AI-generated content, and emerging technologies such as NFTs and the metaverse. The ratio laid down is that a celebrity’s name, image, voice, likeness, and other attributes of persona constitute protectable rights, and any unauthorized use whether through conventional media or new technologies like Artificial Intelligence, deepfakes, GIFs, or domain name misuse amounts to an infringement. The courts emphasized that while genuine news, satire, parody, or criticism are permissible under free speech, commercial exploitation or derogatory depictions without consent cross the line, thereby justifying judicial protection through injunctions to safeguard the celebrity’s dignity, livelihood, and economic interests.

Other recent cases, including Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd. (2024) and Akshay Tanna v. John Doe & Ors. (2024), further demonstrate judicial recognition of personality rights in the evolving digital and technological landscape, while reinforcing both preventive and remedial safeguards. In Karan Johar, the Bombay High Court restrained the release of the film Shadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar, holding that the unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s name and attributes created a misleading association and violated his personality, publicity, and privacy rights. The Court emphasized that celebrity names have attained brand value and cannot be commercially exploited without consent.

Similarly, in Akshay Tanna v. John Doe & Ors. (2024), the Delhi High Court granted protection against impersonation and fraudulent misrepresentation on digital platforms, where unknown individuals (John Doe defendants) were found to be creating fake profiles, groups, and communications to exploit the plaintiff’s identity and goodwill. The Court recognized that digital impersonation not only infringes upon the right of publicity but also causes irreparable harm to the reputation and trust associated with a celebrity’s persona. The decision underscores that personality rights extend to online spaces, social media, and messaging platforms, requiring robust enforcement to combat identity misuse in cyberspace.

Together, these rulings illustrate that Indian courts are increasingly adapting personality rights doctrine to modern contexts whether in relation to films, branding, or the online environment thereby affirming that both preventive injunctions and remedial actions are available to safeguard celebrity identity and reputation.

How is Jurisprudence Evolving, and What are the Future Directions?

Courts have consistently recognized that personality rights extend beyond traditional media to address emerging challenges posed by AI, digital manipulation, and virtual environments. The introduction of John Doe orders exemplifies the judiciary’s proactive approach to preemptive protection in a fast-evolving technological landscape. As celebrity culture continues to expand and digital content becomes increasingly pervasive, there is a growing call for dedicated legislation that explicitly codifies personality rights, defines their scope, and provides clear remedies for infringement. Such legal reform would complement existing judicial safeguards and statutory provisions, ensuring that public personalities can protect their identity, dignity, and commercial value in the digital age. 

Concept – John Doe orders

A John Doe order, also known as an Ashok Kumar order in India, is a court injunction issued against unknown or unidentified defendants to prevent potential or ongoing rights violations. It enables rights-holders, such as celebrities, authors, or companies, to restrain not only known violators but also anyone who might infringe their rights in the future, making it especially useful in cases of widespread infringement like piracy, unauthorized broadcasting, counterfeiting, or misuse of celebrity identity. The term “John Doe” (or “Jane Doe”) is borrowed from common law jurisdictions as placeholders for unidentified persons, while in India the term gained recognition after a 2002 Delhi High Court order in a film piracy case. A notable example in the realm of personality rights is Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Negi & Ors. (2022, Delhi HC), where the court restrained both known and unknown parties from exploiting Bachchan’s name, image, voice, or persona, including through emerging technologies such as NFTs, the metaverse, and AI-generated deepfakes.

References-

• Copyright Act, 1957, §§ 2(qq), 17, 38, 38A, 39, 52, No. 14 of 1957 (India).
• Trademarks Act, 1999, §§ 2(m), 14, 35, No. 47 of 1999 (India).

• R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632 (India) (Auto Shankar case).
• ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, 2003 SCC OnLine Del 53; (2003) 26 PTC 245 (Del. H.C.).
• D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 1264; (2010) 42 PTC 520 (Del. H.C.).
• Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382; (2012) 50 PTC 486 (Del. H.C.).
• Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions, 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 1582 (Mad. H.C.).
• Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Negi & Ors., CS (COMM) 819/2022 (Del. H.C., Nov. 25, 2022).
• Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6018 (Del. H.C., Sept. 20, 2023).
• Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1307 (Bom. H.C., June 13, 2024; confirmed Mar. 7, 2025).
• Akshay Tanna v. John Doe & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3127 (Del. H.C., Aug. 29, 2024).
• Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty v. Medicine Me & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3559 (Del. H.C., Nov. 12, 2024).