The convergence of rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence, particularly tools that create audio-visual content indistinguishable from reality, such as deepfakes, voice clones, AI-generated images/videos, and an increasing digital communication, has raised urgent questions around identity, consent, and personal dignity. As digital impersonation becomes easier and more convincing, the thin line between fiction and reality has started to blur.
To confront these risks, Indian law has begun evolving in two significant ways: first, through judicial recognition of personality rights, which is an individual’s right to control the commercial and reputational use of their identity, and second, through the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 along with the proposed 2025 amendments, which explicitly bring “synthetically generated information” within the regulatory framework. Together, these developments represent India’s emerging response to the misuse of human identity in an increasingly artificial digital world.
Understanding Personality Rights
Personality rights protect aspects of an individual’s persona, such as name, image, likeness, voice, signature, gestures, catchphrases, and other identifying attributes from unauthorised use. Indian courts have derived these rights from constitutional protections of dignity and privacy under Article 21. Personality rights are now viewed as both a form of intangible property and a fundamental aspect of autonomy and dignity. Initially invoked mostly by Indian celebrities, these rights are now increasingly recognised for digital creators, influencers, and ordinary individuals whose identities may be exploited online.
Traditionally, infringement of personality rights occurs through the misuse of photographs or the sale of merchandise by unauthorised sellers. However, now, deepfakes and synthetic media can place a person in contexts they never participated in, such as fake endorsements, statements, explicit visuals, or cloning of voice, and deepfake videos, causing severe harm to their reputation.
The Rise of Synthetically Generated Content
AI-generated synthetic content has become increasingly sophisticated, capable of producing realistic content that users may not be able to distinguish from genuine content. Fake videos, product endorsements, fabricated audio messages, or doctored images can now be generated with basic technical skill. Such synthetic content poses serious risks to individuals, including infringement of their personality and privacy rights, reputational damage, fraud, and misinformation.
The use of deepfakes to impersonate celebrities, politicians, social media influencers, and individuals has surged in India over the past few years. Synthetic images, fake endorsements, manipulated comments, fake news, deepfake videos, and voice cloning have become recurring issues.
Indian Courts on Personality Rights
Indian courts have increasingly dealt with disputes involving the infringement of the personality rights through deepfakes, manipulated visuals, and unauthorised AI-generated content, requiring judicial intervention.
In 2024, the Court issued a dynamic injunction in the case of Anil Kapoor vs Simply Life India & Ors, which prohibited the unauthorised use of the actor’s name, image, voice, and any elements of his persona for merchandise, ringtones, and various commercial purposes, including his iconic “Jhakaas” catchphrase. This decision effectively upheld his personality rights and is consistent with IP protection in India.
Recently, in Akshay Hari Om Bhatia vs John Doe, the Bombay High Court intervened, ordering the immediate removal of deepfake videos and manipulated images that impersonated Indian actor Akshay Kumar. The Court noted that the deepfake video featuring Akshay Kumar making communally inflammatory remarks was highly troubling and could lead to serious outcomes. The Court emphasised that this type of content infringed upon Akshay Kumar’s personal and moral rights, jeopardised the safety of his family, and had the potential to negatively affect society and public order.
Around the same time, in the case of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan vs Aishwaryaworld.Com & Ors., the Delhi High Court granted relief to actress Aishwarya Rai Bachchan against unauthorised use of her photographs, voice, and AI-generated likeness for merchandise, deepfakes, and online impersonation. The Court emphasised that her persona, including voice, image, and personality traits, could not be exploited without consent.
The Bombay High Court also protected veteran singer Asha Bhosle against AI-generated voice cloning that reproduced her vocals without permission. In Asha Bhosle vs Mayk Inc, the Court acknowledged that voice is a fundamental aspect of personality rights that deserves protection, and it prohibited the defendants from exploiting or infringing upon Asha Bhosle’s personality rights, or from misrepresenting their products and services as endorsed by her or originating from her.
Similarly, in Raj Shamani vs John Doe, the Delhi High Court granted personality rights protection to social media content creator Raj Shamani, affirming that his name, image, voice, and likeness are elements that fall under his personality rights. As a result, he has the right to seek an injunction to safeguard these rights. The Court further indicated that he is entitled to defend himself against altered and distorted content that is defamatory, demeaning, or clearly false, as such content could harm his reputation and goodwill.
These and numerous other cases involving ‘The Art of Living’ Guru Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, actors Amitabh Bachchan, Jackie Shroff, Abhishek Bachchan, Ajay Devgn, Nagarjuna, Suniel Shetty, Hrithik Roshan, actress Shilpa Shetty, singer Kumar Sanu, film producer and director Karan Johar, Members of Parliament music maestro Ilaiyaraaja and actress Jaya Bachchan, and many others, reflect a powerful judicial trend that personality rights now extend beyond photographs or names to include voice, gestures, mannerisms, digital likeness, all of which are attributes most vulnerable to synthetic manipulation in the form of AI-generated content, deepfakes, and voice cloning.
The 2025 Proposed Amendments to IT Rules, 2021
Recognising the urgent need for regulation, the proposed 2025 amendments to the IT Rules introduce the critical concept of “synthetically generated information” (SGI) and place intermediaries such as social media platforms, hosting platforms, digital news publishers, and online-curated content providers under a unified framework. The Rules impose due diligence obligations on intermediaries, who must ensure that their platforms do not host, transmit, or store unlawful content, including content that infringes privacy, impersonates persons, is defamatory, or obscene.
The amendments mandate that platforms clearly and prominently label synthetic media to help users distinguish artificial content from real. They must also filter and block harmful synthetically generated information using necessary AI tools and prevent its amplification via algorithms. Additionally, intermediaries are required to remove or disable access to such content within 36 hours (or within 24 hours in more sensitive cases, such as impersonation or sexual content), in response to user complaints, government or court orders, and to disclose and enforce clear user policies that prohibit the misuse of synthetic content. Most notably, intermediaries that fail to comply risk losing their “safe harbour” protection under Section 79 of the IT Act, thereby becoming legally liable for the harmful content they host.
Intersection of IT Rules with Personality Rights
The introduction of synthetic-media regulation under the IT Rules significantly strengthens the legal protection of personality rights in India. First, by defining synthetically generated information, the Rules ensure that AI-generated impersonations, such as voice clones, deepfake videos, and face swaps, are treated as “information” subject to regulation. This allows personality rights violations involving synthetic media to be addressed under the IT Rules alongside protection from courts. Further, the mandatory labelling requirement preserves the authenticity of a person’s identity and can help prevent users from believing that an individual performed actions or uttered statements that they never did.
The expedited takedown obligations also support victims of synthetic impersonation, reducing the window during which their identity may be misused or their reputation damaged. Additionally, the risk of losing safe-harbour protections acts as a deterrent against passive hosting of deepfake impersonations or synthetic endorsements.
The amendments to the IT Rules effectively put into practice and enforce the personality rights recognised by the judiciary by imposing specific obligations on intermediaries, such as social media platforms and online service providers, to take the necessary steps to protect an individual’s identity and personal information from misuse, modification, or unauthorised access.
Conclusion
For individuals, especially public figures, social media influencers, or other personalities, the expanded IT Rules provide a stronger framework for asserting control over their identity. They can demand the takedown of unauthorised deepfakes, impersonations, or AI-generated content that misuses their likeness. The labelling requirement helps protect against wrongful associations, fake endorsements, or reputational harm. The 2025 amendments to the IT Rules mark a foundational shift, with India formally acknowledging synthetic media as a distinct regulatory concern under IT law and adding it to the due diligence obligations of intermediaries.
As generative AI becomes more powerful in the coming years, deepfake detection evolves, and Indian courts deliver more judgments on identity misuse, the challenges relating to regulating AI-generated content and personality rights will likely define the approach to digital privacy, reputation, and creative freedom in India.
Authors: Manisha Singh and Shivi Gupta
First Published by: Mondaq here