The Delhi High Court has held that personality rights cannot be treated as a standalone cause of action, observing that the unauthorised use of an individual’s name, image or likeness does not, by itself, amount to an unlawful act. The Court emphasised that claims concerning the misuse of a person’s identity must be examined under the distinct legal rights and remedies available under the law.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav made the observations while granting interim protection to actor Kriti Sanon against the alleged misuse of her name, image, likeness and voice through artificial intelligence-generated deepfakes, impersonation and synthetic voice technologies.
The Court clarified that the expression ‘personality rights’ encompasses several independent legal interests, including the right of publicity, passing off, privacy, defamation and, where applicable, protections under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957, including performers’ rights.
It observed that each of these legal claims has its own essential requirements, available defences and remedies. Merely clubbing them under the broad expression ‘personality rights’ cannot dilute the legal standards governing individual causes of action.
The Court further distinguished between the right of publicity and personal rights such as privacy, dignity and reputation. While the right of publicity protects the commercial value attached to an individual’s identity and may be licensed, personal interests relating to privacy, dignity and reputation are inherently individual and cannot be assigned.
Significantly, the Court observed that personality rights are not confined to celebrities or public figures. Every individual enjoys such rights, although the extent of an individual’s fame may be relevant in determining the commercial value of their identity and the loss arising from its unauthorised exploitation.
The Court stated that the mere use of a person’s identity cannot automatically be characterised as unlawful. A person seeking judicial protection must identify the specific legal wrong alleged rather than invoke personality rights as an omnibus ground for restraining all forms of use.
It also emphasised that a plaintiff seeking enforcement of personality rights must set out the allegations against each defendant separately and identify the particular content and material forming the basis of the claim. A blanket injunction cannot be sought by placing multiple, legally distinct grievances under a common label.
The Court clarified that the legal questions surrounding the scope and enforceability of personality rights would be examined on their merits after the contesting defendants had an opportunity to present their cases. The present directions, it said, were only an ad-interim arrangement intended to preserve the rights of the parties.
Sanon had approached the High Court alleging that several individuals and entities were exploiting her identity without authorisation. The alleged activities included falsely offering bookings in her name, operating impersonation accounts on social media, circulating morphed and AI-generated images, selling merchandise using her identity, and creating AI chatbots and synthetic voice models purporting to represent her.
Her complaint also referred to the creation and circulation of pornographic deepfake content depicting her.
While granting interim protection, the Court made it clear that its directions would not operate as a restraint on legitimate news reporting, reviews, criticism, commentary, satire, parody, caricature or fan expression, provided such activities did not fall within the prohibited conduct identified in the order.
The ruling comes against the backdrop of a broader legal debate before the Delhi High Court concerning the contours of personality rights and the permissible limits of judicial protection. A coordinate Bench is examining similar issues in proceedings initiated by actors Janhvi Kapoor and Vivek Oberoi, as well as a suit concerning Aaradhya Bachchan.
Advocates Gautam Bhatia and Rohan Alva have been appointed as amici curiae in those proceedings. Bhatia has argued that Indian law does not recognise a standalone cause of action for personality rights that automatically entitles a plaintiff to a sweeping John Doe injunction against unidentified persons.
The post Personality rights not a standalone cause of action, mere use of identity not unlawful: Delhi High Court appeared first on India Legal.