Personality rights in India are the legal protections that let a person control how their name, photograph, face, voice, signature and other identifiable features are used commercially. If someone uses your identity without permission, to sell products, in a fake endorsement, or in fabricated or pornographic content, Indian courts can order them to stop. In Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store (Delhi High Court, 15 May 2024) the court restrained the unauthorised commercial use of an actor's name, image and catchphrase on merchandise as a violation of his personality and publicity rights, and orders of that kind have since become the standard response to face-swapped video, fake endorsements and unlicensed merchandise alike.
This guide explains what personality rights actually are, where they come from in Indian law, who can claim them, and the practical steps an affected person can take. While the headline case involved a celebrity, the underlying principles increasingly matter to anyone whose face or name has value, influencers, doctors, business owners and ordinary individuals targeted by deepfakes.
What are personality rights and publicity rights?
There is no single statute in India titled the "Personality Rights Act". Instead, these rights are recognised by courts as a combination of established legal principles. Broadly, two related ideas are involved:
- Right to publicity (commercial control): the right to control and profit from the commercial use of your identity, your name, image, likeness, voice and recognisable attributes. This stops others from cashing in on your fame without consent.
- Right to privacy and dignity (personal control): the right to be left alone and to protect your dignity from degrading, false or intrusive uses of your identity.
Indian courts have anchored these rights in the fundamental right to privacy recognised by the Supreme Court in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India (Supreme Court, 24 August 2017), read with Article 21 of the Constitution, and in principles drawn from trademark law, copyright law, passing off and the tort of defamation.
The two rights bundled together under the label, and where they come from.
Right to publicity
The right to control and profit from the commercial use of your identity: your name, image, likeness, voice and recognisable attributes.
Privacy and dignity
The right to be left alone and to protect your dignity from degrading, false or intrusive uses of your identity.
No single statute
There is no Personality Rights Act. Courts anchor these rights in Puttaswamy and Article 21, read with trademark law, copyright, passing off and defamation.
Where do personality rights come from in Indian law?
Because there is no dedicated statute, claimants usually combine several legal sources. Always confirm the current section numbers, as India's criminal codes have been renumbered.
| Legal source | What it protects | Key provisions (verify current numbering) |
|---|---|---|
| Constitution of India | Privacy, dignity, life and liberty | Article 21 (right to privacy / dignity) |
| Trade Marks Act, 1999 | A registered name/mark used as a brand | Ss. 29 (infringement), 27 (passing off) |
| Copyright Act, 1957 | Photographs, performances, recordings | S. 38 (performer's rights), S. 14 |
| Common law tort | Passing off, false endorsement, defamation | Judge-made principles |
| Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) | Obscenity, impersonation, defamation | S. 294 (obscene material, formerly IPC 292), S. 319 (cheating by personation, formerly IPC 419), S. 356 (defamation, formerly IPC 499 and 500) |
| Information Technology Act, 2000 + Rules | Obscene/sexually explicit content online, deepfakes, intermediary takedown | S. 66E (violation of privacy), S. 67 (obscene material in electronic form), S. 67A (sexually explicit material); IT Rules 2021 |
Important renumbering note: The Indian Penal Code (IPC) has been replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Provisions on obscenity, criminal defamation and cheating by impersonation now sit in the BNS rather than the old IPC sections: obscene material moves from Section 292 IPC to Section 294 BNS, cheating by personation from Section 419 IPC to Section 319 BNS, and defamation from Sections 499 and 500 IPC to Section 356 BNS. The Information Technology Act, 2000 is unaffected and continues to apply in its own numbering. Always verify the exact current section before relying on any number.
What the Jackie Shroff order illustrates
The Delhi High Court's order of 15 May 2024 in Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store is the clearest recent illustration of how these claims are put together. The actor complained about a spread of defendants selling merchandise, running shops and posting content that traded on his name, his face and his well-known catchphrase, and the court restrained that unauthorised commercial exploitation of his personality and publicity rights.
What makes such a case useful is that two distinct legal threads run through it at once:
- The publicity or commercial thread tackles merchandise, shop names, advertising and endorsement. Nobody may trade on your identity to sell goods or services without your consent. Where the name also functions as a brand, the claim is reinforced by Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for a registered mark and by the passing-off action expressly preserved by Section 27(2) for an unregistered one.
- The dignity and privacy thread tackles fabricated, obscene or sexually explicit material built on a person's face. That is not a commercial grievance at all; it is an attack on dignity, and it draws on the privacy right recognised in Puttaswamy and on Sections 66E, 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Courts have been willing to grant urgent injunctions in these cases, including against unknown defendants through John Doe or Ashok Kumar orders, and against intermediaries who host the material.
Most real cases involve both threads, which is why the pleadings usually run in parallel: an injunction and damages claim on the civil side, and a criminal complaint on the online-content side.
Who can claim personality rights in India?
Courts have most readily protected well-known persons, actors, musicians, sportspersons, public figures, because their identity has clear commercial value and is easily recognised. But the underlying privacy and dignity protections are not limited to celebrities:
- A non-celebrity whose photo is used in a fake endorsement, scam advertisement or morphed/pornographic image can sue for privacy violation, defamation and damages.
- An influencer or professional (a doctor, chef, lawyer) whose name is used to sell products they never endorsed can claim passing off and false endorsement.
- The deceased and their heirs: Indian courts have generally held that the commercial publicity right is personal and does not always survive death in the same way, though the position is still developing, verify the latest law before advising on a deceased person's estate.
Key takeaway. There is no Personality Rights Act to point at, so a claim is only as good as the sources it is stitched from. A strong petition pleads all of them together: Article 21 and Puttaswamy for privacy and dignity, Section 29 or Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for the brand value in the name, performer's rights under the Copyright Act, 1957 where a performance is involved, and Sections 66E, 67 and 67A of the IT Act for online obscenity. Pleading only one of them is the commonest reason a good case gets a narrow order.
Deepfakes, morphing and AI-generated content
The fastest-growing threat to personality rights is AI-generated or "deepfake" content, synthetic videos and images that put a real person's face onto fabricated, often sexual or defamatory, material. Indian courts have treated such content as a serious violation, and relief can include:
- Injunctions ordering removal and restraining further publication.
- Takedown directions to intermediaries (platforms, hosting services) under the IT Act and the 2021 Intermediary Rules.
- Blocking of URLs/domains and orders against unknown uploaders.
- Damages for the dignitary and commercial harm caused.
This is where personality-rights law overlaps heavily with cyber-crime law; an affected person often pursues both a civil injunction and a criminal complaint.
Deadline warning. With synthetic or morphed content, speed is the whole case. Every hour it stays up it is mirrored, re-uploaded and cached somewhere else, and an injunction against the original uploader then achieves very little. On the day you find it: capture the URL, the account handle, a full-page screenshot with the visible timestamp and the video or image file itself, file on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal at cybercrime.gov.in, send the platform grievance officer a takedown demand, and instruct counsel to move for an urgent injunction. Do not delete anything, however distressing it is; the material is your evidence.
How to protect and enforce your personality rights, practical steps
| Stage | What to do | Why it helps |
|---|---|---|
| Before any misuse | Register your name/logo as a trade mark where it functions as a brand; keep dated proof of your work and likeness | Stronger, faster injunctions; clear ownership |
| On discovering misuse | Preserve evidence, screenshots, URLs, dates, seller details; do not delete anything | Evidence wins interim injunctions |
| First legal step | Send a cease-and-desist legal notice; file platform takedown/grievance complaints | Often stops the misuse without litigation |
| Urgent court relief | Apply for an interim injunction (including John Doe orders against unknown infringers) | Stops circulation while the case proceeds |
| Online/criminal track | File a cyber-crime complaint for obscene/morphed content; report to the national cyber-crime portal | Criminal deterrent + faster takedown |
| Final relief | Seek a permanent injunction, account of profits and damages | Compensation + lasting protection |
Reliefs an Indian court can grant
- Interim and permanent injunctions restraining use of your name, image or likeness.
- Mandatory takedown and delisting of infringing content and listings.
- Damages and account of profits for unauthorised commercial gain.
- Delivery-up or destruction of unauthorised merchandise.
What an Indian court can actually order once misuse is established.
Interim and permanent injunctions
Restraining use of your name, image or likeness. These can be granted urgently, sometimes within days, where there is clear misuse and harm.
John Doe orders
Also called Ashok Kumar orders. Courts grant them against unidentified infringers, and can direct intermediaries to take down content and block URLs.
Takedown and delisting
Mandatory removal and delisting of infringing content and listings, under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the 2021 Intermediary Rules.
Damages and delivery up
Damages and an account of profits for unauthorised commercial gain, together with delivery up or destruction of unauthorised merchandise.
Common mistake. Brands and agencies assume that a look-alike, an AI-generated voice or a "no names used" caption keeps them safe. It does not. The test is whether the ordinary viewer identifies the real person, so a recognisable voice, a signature catchphrase, a distinctive silhouette or an obvious impersonation can all found a claim even though the name never appears. If a campaign only works because the audience recognises someone, get a written licence.
What this means for businesses and content creators
If you run a brand, an e-commerce store or a marketing agency, the flip side matters: using a real person's name, face, voice or look-alike to promote products without a written licence is risky. This includes "inspired by" merchandise, AI-generated celebrity voices, and influencer images repurposed without permission. Get proper assignment or licence agreements, and treat AI-generated likenesses of real people as a legal hazard, not a shortcut. For how the injunction itself is framed and what a court will actually order, see our note on the personality rights injunction, and for the brand-bidding side of the same problem see competitors bidding on your brand name. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 itself is on India Code.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a specific personality rights law in India?
No single statute. Personality and publicity rights are protected through a mix of the constitutional right to privacy (Article 21), trade mark and passing-off principles, copyright/performer's rights, defamation, and the IT Act for online content.
Can an ordinary person, not a celebrity, claim these rights?
Yes. While the commercial publicity right is strongest for famous people, anyone can sue for privacy violation, defamation and damages if their image or name is misused, for example in a morphed photo or a fake endorsement.
What can I do about a deepfake or morphed pornographic image of me?
Preserve the evidence, file a complaint on the national cyber-crime portal, send takedown notices to the platform, and approach a court for an urgent injunction. Both civil and criminal remedies are available.
Can a court order an unknown uploader to stop?
Yes. Indian courts grant "John Doe" (Ashok Kumar) orders against unidentified infringers and can direct intermediaries to take down content and block URLs.
Does selling merchandise with a celebrity's name need permission?
Yes. Using a person's name, image or likeness on products for sale generally requires a licence. Without consent it can amount to passing off, false endorsement and a publicity-rights violation.
Do personality rights survive a person's death?
The position is still developing. Courts have generally treated the commercial publicity right as personal, so it may not always pass to heirs the way property does. Verify the current law before acting for an estate.
How quickly can I get relief?
Courts can grant interim injunctions urgently, sometimes within days, where there is clear misuse and harm, especially for obscene or defamatory online content.
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws change and every situation is different; please consult a qualified advocate about your specific matter.
