iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
In India, courts have used personality or publicity rights to protect aspects of an identifiable person’s identity—such as a name, image, likeness or voice—from certain unauthorized uses. The protection is not a blanket veto over every reference to a person: the claim, evidence, competing interests and requested remedy matter. The leading decisions illustrate both sides: courts have granted interim relief against specified commercial or AI-related uses, while also declining to restrain a film based on public-domain reporting.
What personality rights protect
Personality rights, sometimes discussed as publicity rights, concern the connection between a person and identifiable attributes of that person’s persona. Depending on the facts and the legal claim, those attributes may include a name, image, likeness, voice or other distinctive features. The central question is not simply whether a person is mentioned. It is whether the challenged use appropriates or otherwise affects an identifiable persona in a way that supports legal relief.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
The Rights of Indians and Tribes | $30.93 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
American Indian Law in a Nutshell | $65.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
American Indian Law: Cases and Commentary (American Casebook Series) | $311.10 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
American Indian Law: Native Nations and the Federal System | $246.41 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
American Indian Law in a Nutshell | $63.97 | Buy on Amazon |
Publicity rights have a commercial dimension. In its 11 July 2023 decision in Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A Saraogi, the Delhi High Court described them as recognizing “the commercial value of the image or the persona of a person, and protected his proprietary interest in the profitability of his public reputation.” That description is useful, but it is not a complete test for every dispute. Claims may also involve privacy, intellectual-property interests or constitutional considerations.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallCrashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteThe legal interests overlap, but they are not interchangeable. A complaint about commercial exploitation of an image is not automatically the same claim as a privacy complaint, and a dispute about an AI-generated voice does not resolve every question about copyright or technology. The right asserted and the facts supporting it should be identified rather than treating “personality rights” as a single, all-purpose legal rule.
#1 Best Overall
How Indian courts have approached these rights
The decisions discussed here do not establish a single comprehensive personality-rights statute. Instead, Indian courts have addressed identity and persona through case-specific disputes that engage privacy, publicity, intellectual property and constitutional interests. The procedural status of each decision matters: an interim order is not the same as a final judgment after the full case has been decided.
In the Delhi High Court’s 20 September 2023 interim order in Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., the court recorded that Kapoor sought protection for his name, image, likeness, voice and other attributes. It found a prima facie case for ex parte interim relief and restrained specified defendants from specified uses of his persona. The order included certain AI-generated and commercial uses. It addressed the parties and uses before that court; it should not be read as a final, nationwide prohibition on all similar material.
The order also noted that identity-related intellectual-property protections can have constitutional dimensions: “The present case shows how elements of intellectual property that protect the attributes of an individual, in fact have other dimensions including rights protected by the Constitution of India.” This is the Delhi High Court’s language in the context of that case, not a declaration that every use of a public figure’s attributes violates the Constitution.
In its 26 July 2024 interim order in Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, the Bombay High Court addressed allegations concerning the singer’s name, image, voice, vocal style, manner of singing and other attributes. The order included alleged AI voice models and synthesized voice imitations among the uses at issue. It demonstrates that a voice-related imitation can raise a personality-rights question, but it does not make every imitation unlawful regardless of context, authorization or other legal interests.
What the three decisions show—and what they do not
| Decision | Date and posture | Issue before the court | What the decision establishes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., Delhi High Court | 20 September 2023; interim, ex parte relief | Requested protection for name, image, likeness, voice and other persona attributes; specified AI-generated and commercial uses were among those addressed. | The court found a prima facie case and restrained specified defendants from specified uses. The relief was case-specific and interim. |
| Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, Bombay High Court | 26 July 2024; interim order | Alleged use of name, image, voice, vocal style, manner of singing and other attributes, including AI voice models and synthesized voices. | The court’s interim order addressed those allegations. It illustrates that voice imitation can raise a claim; it does not settle every possible use. |
| Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A Saraogi & Ors., Delhi High Court | 11 July 2023; decision on an application for interim restraint | A request to restrain a film about Sushant Singh Rajput, based on publicly available material, and claims concerning his asserted privacy, publicity and personality rights. | The court declined the requested interim restraint and held that the deceased person’s asserted rights were not inherited by the plaintiff on the facts before it. |
These outcomes are not contradictory shortcuts to a universal rule. The courts considered different works, uses, parties, records and procedural questions. In one case, the court found a prima facie basis for an interim order against specified uses. In another, it declined to restrain a film and addressed the limits of a family member’s claim to a deceased person’s persona. Neither result automatically decides a later dispute involving different facts.
When name, image or voice use may raise an issue
Whether a use can be challenged depends on more than the presence of a recognizable name or face. The decisions point to a practical set of questions, not a mechanical checklist that guarantees a result:
- Is the person identifiable? Consider whether the material points to a particular person through a name, image, voice or combination of attributes.
- What attribute is being used? A photograph, name, likeness, voice or distinctive vocal style may present different factual and legal questions.
- What is the purpose and context? Commercial exploitation, expressive content and uses with both expressive and commercial features may require different analysis.
- Was the use authorized? The existence and scope of permission can be important; the relevant permission may concern one attribute, format or context rather than every possible use.
- What legal interest is asserted? A claimant should identify whether the concern is framed around publicity, privacy, intellectual property or another relevant interest.
- What evidence and procedural stage are involved? A court considering interim relief evaluates the record then available. A preliminary order is not a final determination of all disputed facts or claims.
- What competing interests apply? Expression and other contextual considerations may affect whether an injunction is justified.
The list helps organize the issue; it should not be mistaken for a test formally adopted in identical terms by all courts. The cases show that the inquiry is fact-sensitive and that the procedural setting influences what a court decides.
Recommended Free Tools
AI-generated images, deepfakes and synthetic voices
AI does not make the underlying question disappear: the issue remains whether the material uses or imitates an identifiable person’s attributes in a legally actionable way, considered in its particular context. The Kapoor interim order addressed specified AI-generated, deepfake, face-morphing and merchandise uses. The Singh interim order addressed alleged AI voice models and synthesized voice imitations, alongside other alleged uses of his persona.
Those orders are significant examples of courts considering newer forms of identity use, but their scope should be described carefully. They do not establish that every deepfake, parody, synthetic voice, fictionalized depiction or AI-generated reference is prohibited. Nor do they establish that AI use is exempt from a claim merely because no original photograph or recording was copied. The facts, identifiable attributes, purpose, authorization, legal basis and competing interests remain relevant.
For a person who encounters a suspected misuse, preserve the actual content and its context rather than relying only on a description of it. A copy or screenshot, the page or account where it appeared, its surrounding text, the date observed and any indication of commercial use may help explain what happened. This is practical evidence preservation, not a conclusion that a claim necessarily exists.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Limits: expression, public information and deceased people
Personality or publicity rights do not create an automatic power to stop all speech about a person. In the 11 July 2023 Krishna Kishore Singh decision, the Delhi High Court declined an application seeking interim restraint against a film about Sushant Singh Rajput, where it found that the material was drawn from publicly available reporting. The decision addressed freedom of expression in that case.
That ruling should not be stretched into a claim that any publication using public information is immune from every legal challenge. It resolved an application on the record and circumstances before the court. Different content, evidence or legal claims may present different questions. Likewise, the fact that a work concerns a public figure does not, by itself, settle whether a particular commercial use of that person’s identity is permissible.
Best Value
The same decision rejected the plaintiff’s claim to inherit the deceased person’s asserted privacy, publicity and personality rights on the facts before it. This is an important limit for family members considering a claim, but it is not a complete statement of every possible posthumous right or remedy in India. The ruling should be cited for what that court decided in that case, not generalized into a universal rule governing all uses after death.
What remedies may be sought
The cited decisions show that interim injunctions may be requested and granted in an appropriate case, and that damages may be discussed as a possible remedy. They do not guarantee either outcome. An interim injunction is a court order addressing conduct while litigation proceeds; it is not necessarily a final ruling on liability. The scope depends on the case and the uses the court addresses.
Anyone assessing a possible dispute should distinguish between wanting content removed, seeking to prevent future specified use, and seeking compensation. Which legal route is available depends on the facts and the claim, and a court may weigh the requested relief against expression and other competing interests. The outcomes in the cited cases cannot predict the result in a new dispute.
What to do if someone uses your identity without permission
- Save the material and context. Keep copies or screenshots of the specific image, audio, video, page or listing, including the surrounding text and the location where it appeared.
- Record the use’s details. Note when you found it, who appears to have posted or distributed it, how it identifies the person and whether it appears connected to a product or other commercial activity.
- Identify the concern precisely. Separate the use of a name, photograph, likeness, voice or vocal style, and consider whether the issue is privacy, commercial appropriation, intellectual property or another interest.
- Check authorization and context. Review any consent or licence that may apply and consider whether the material is commercial, expressive or both. Do not assume that public availability alone resolves the question.
- Seek advice on the specific facts. A lawyer can assess the relevant claim, evidence, potential response and whether to seek an injunction or another remedy. The court decisions provide examples, not individualized legal advice or a guaranteed outcome.
For a reader, the most useful distinction is between a recognizable reference and a legally actionable use. A name, image or voice may be protected in some circumstances, but the cases do not create a universal permission requirement for every mention or depiction. The strongest analysis starts with the precise content and context, then asks what right is asserted and what remedy is actually supported.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
