Personality Rights In India: How Celebrities Protect Their Image And Identity

Across India, images of film stars cover the fronts of salons, car repair shops, and even roadside dhabas. They are a familiar part of the everyday landscape, yet behind these ordinary sights lies a growing legal debate. Increasingly, celebrities are approaching the courts to stop the unauthorised use of their images, bringing personality rights into focus.

The question is whether the law can protect a celebrity’s persona in these ordinary settings, and to what extent.

Bollywood actor Salman Khan has recently approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights. In it, Khan has asked the court to restrain social media platforms and e-commerce websites from using his name, images, persona, or likeness without authorisation, aiming to prevent misuse of his identity. His plea is scheduled to be heard on Thursday by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.

Understanding Personality Rights

Personality rights concern the control an individual has over the commercial use of their identity. This identity can include a person’s name, image, voice, likeness, gestures, and other distinguishing characteristics. While these rights are widely recognised internationally, India does not yet have a standalone law specifically addressing personality rights.

Instead, courts have developed protection through a combination of constitutional principles, common law, and intellectual property statutes. This means that if someone’s name, image, or likeness is used commercially without consent, they can challenge it in court. Recent cases involving Bollywood actors show that celebrities are increasingly keen to control how their persona is used in advertising, merchandising, and online platforms.

At its core, personality rights in India can be divided into two broad categories: the right to privacy and the right to publicity. The right to privacy, recognised by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), provides individuals with a fundamental safeguard under Article 21 of the Constitution. It protects personal and private aspects of life from unauthorised intrusion. However, when it comes to commercial exploitation or use of one’s identity, privacy alone is insufficient. That is where the concept of the right to publicity comes in, a right that has been more closely associated with celebrities or public figures who derive commercial value from their persona.

Historically, the Indian judiciary has filled gaps left by legislation. For example, in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), also known as the Auto Shankar case, the Supreme Court recognised that individuals have the right to control the use of personal information and identity. The Court linked this to fundamental rights of privacy and dignity, laying the groundwork for what would later become known as personality or publicity rights. Yet, the law remains largely judicially constructed and uneven in its application, particularly outside celebrity contexts.

The right to publicity allows individuals to control the commercial use of their identity. Courts have emphasised that such rights exist only when the persona in question has commercial value. In T-Series (Supra Cassettes) v. Dreamline Reality, the Delhi High Court rejected a claim by a private individual asserting personality rights over the portrayal of a relative in a film. The Court held that, in India, such commercial rights largely belong to celebrities, as non-public figures do not usually possess the level of fame or drawing power necessary for protection under publicity claims.

This distinction highlights the divide between general privacy and commercial personality rights.

Several judicial decisions have also clarified what aspects of personality can be protected. In Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, the Delhi High Court defined the right of publicity as “the right to control commercial use of human identity.”

Similarly, the Madras High Court in Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions recognised that a celebrity’s persona cannot be exploited unlawfully, regardless of whether the public might be confused. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India further expanded protection to include gestures, catchphrases, and other elements that make a celebrity recognisable. These cases underline that the law’s focus is on commercial exploitation that could harm reputation, privacy, or livelihood, rather than mere publication or discussion.

The enforcement of personality rights can involve multiple legal tools, such as the Trade Marks Act of 1999, which allows the registration of names, signatures, or catchphrases, creating a framework to prevent unauthorised commercial use. Common law actions, such as passing off, can protect a person’s goodwill from false endorsement.

The Information Technology Act of 2000 also provides remedies against online misuse or morphing of images. Courts have also developed procedural mechanisms, such as the “John Doe” orders, which have allowed injunctions against unidentified defendants, addressing fast-moving online infringements, including deepfakes and AI-generated content.

Recent cases also demonstrate the evolving importance of personality rights in the constantly evolving digital era. For instance, Abhishek Bachchan successfully obtained an injunction against AI-driven misappropriation of his image, whereas Asha Bhosle received protection against AI-generated replication of her voice. The Bombay High Court recently also granted relief to Sunil Shetty and recognised both his moral rights under the Copyright Act and personality rights under Article 21.

Hence, these developments indicate that courts are increasingly acknowledging the need to prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation of identity, particularly in the context of emerging technologies.

However, personality rights are not absolute. Courts have also consistently balanced these rights against freedom of expression. The Delhi High Court has clarified that the use of a celebrity’s name or image for commentary, satire, parody, or news reporting is generally permissible.

In D.M. Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2010), the Court noted that over-protection of publicity rights could chill democratic expression. Similarly, in Digital Collectibles v. Galactus Funware Technology (2023), the Court confirmed that artistic, educational, or critical uses do not infringe publicity rights.

Even when celebrities seek relief, courts often weigh whether the depiction introduces falsehoods or misrepresentation, as seen in Jaikishan Saraf v. Peppy Stores (2024), where Jackie Shroff’s persona was used in a humorous edit. The Court required consideration of context and response from the content creator before granting injunctions.

From the US to Europe: Lessons for Indian Personality Rights

The international context provides additional perspective. In the United States, the right of publicity allows individuals to license, sell, or control their name and likeness, and in some states, these rights may extend to heirs after death. European countries traditionally focus on the personal dimension of personality rights, protecting individuals from intrusion, defamation, or harm to feelings, with commercial aspects recognised more recently. In India, the emphasis has been on commercial misuse for celebrities, rather than personal feelings for private individuals, though the boundaries remain fluid.

While personality rights are mostly exercised by celebrities, the underlying principles also protect ordinary citizens from intrusion into their private lives. For example, the right to privacy under R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu includes personal and family information, education, and other private matters, preventing the unauthorised publication without consent. Yet, in commercial contexts, ordinary individuals rarely meet the threshold for publicity rights, which requires some degree of drawing power or economic value in the persona.

The law also intersects with the right to livelihood. Celebrities have sometimes argued that unauthorised use of their image or likeness harms their income. However, courts have noted that everyday unofficial merchandise or parodic content rarely causes measurable harm. Actionable claims typically arise when there is misrepresentation, misleading endorsement, or the use of persona in obscene or defamatory contexts. The standards for these claims remain inconsistent, and the courts are still shaping the contours of personality rights in India.

Personality rights in India occupy a complex and evolving legal space. They are derived from constitutional protections, judicial interpretation, and intellectual property law, rather than from a dedicated statute.

Celebrities enjoy more defined protections under the right to publicity, particularly against commercial exploitation, while ordinary citizens rely mainly on privacy rights. Courts continue to balance these rights against freedom of expression, especially in contexts of commentary, parody, and artistic use.

As technology and digital media evolve, personality rights are likely to face new challenges, requiring careful judicial interpretation to protect identity without curtailing free speech.