Authored By: Pallavi T
KLE Law College Bengaluru
Introduction
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transformed the creation and dissemination of digital content by enabling the production of highly realistic digital replicas that can imitate a person’s face, voice, expressions, and gestures. These technological advancements have created significant opportunities in fields such as entertainment, healthcare, education, and digital communication. At the same time, they have generated complex legal and ethical concerns relating to privacy, identity, autonomy, and personality rights. The ability to create convincing AI-generated replicas without an individual’s knowledge or consent has exposed gaps in existing legal frameworks, many of which were developed before the emergence of such technologies.
In India, protection against the misuse of digital identity is dispersed across constitutional principles, judicial recognition of personality rights, data protection legislation, intellectual property laws, and cyber laws. Although these legal mechanisms provide certain safeguards, they do not constitute a comprehensive regulatory framework capable of addressing the unique challenges posed by AI-generated digital replicas. The absence of clear statutory recognition of digital replicas, uniform consent requirements, and specific liability standards creates uncertainty for both individuals and technology developers.
This article argues that India requires a rights-based legal framework that recognises AI-generated digital replicas as a distinct legal issue. Such a framework should strengthen personality rights, establish clear standards for informed consent, define liability for unauthorised creation and misuse of digital replicas, and provide effective enforcement mechanisms. At the same time, it should encourage responsible technological innovation while ensuring adequate protection of individual rights in the rapidly evolving digital environment.
Re-examining Personality Rights in the Era of Artificial Intelligence
2.1 AI-Generated Digital Replicas: Beyond Deepfakes
Artificial Intelligence has transformed the way human identity can be recreated in the digital environment. While the term deepfake commonly refers to AI-generated manipulated images or videos, it represents only one aspect of a broader technological development. Modern AI systems can generate highly realistic digital replicas that reproduce a person’s face, voice, expressions, gestures, and mannerisms. Unlike traditional editing techniques, these systems create entirely new synthetic content capable of convincingly portraying an individual saying or doing things that never occurred. Such replicas may be misused for commercial endorsements, financial fraud, public deception, or identity exploitation, raising legal concerns that extend beyond copyright protection to the broader question of whether the law protects identity itself.
2.2 Personality Rights as the Jurisprudential Foundation
India does not have a dedicated statute governing personality rights. Instead, these rights have evolved through judicial interpretation. In ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, the Delhi High Court recognised that an individual’s identity possesses independent commercial value and cannot be commercially exploited without consent. This principle was further reinforced in D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, where the Court restrained the unauthorised use of singer Daler Mehndi’s identity and clarified that personality rights protect not only reputation but also the commercial and proprietary interests associated with an individual’s persona. These decisions established identity as a legally protectable interest within Indian jurisprudence.
2.3 Jurisprudential Boundaries of Personality Rights in the Age of AI
Despite these developments, existing personality-rights jurisprudence was shaped before the emergence of generative AI and primarily addresses conventional forms of identity misappropriation, such as false endorsements and counterfeit merchandise. It provides little guidance on whether prior consent is required to create AI-generated digital replicas, whether personality rights extend equally to non-celebrities, or how liability should be allocated among AI developers, platform operators, and users. Consequently, while judicial precedents provide an important foundation for protecting identity, they do not adequately address the unique challenges posed by AI-generated digital replicas. This doctrinal gap highlights the need to examine whether India’s constitutional and statutory framework is capable of responding effectively to the realities of artificial intelligence.
III. The Fragmented Legal Architecture Governing Digital Replicas in India
3.1 Constitutional Foundations: Privacy, Autonomy and Digital Identity
The constitutional protection of an individual’s digital identity in India is primarily derived from Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right, encompassing informational self-determination, decisional autonomy, and an individual’s control over personal information. These principles assume greater significance in the context of AI-generated digital replicas, which rely on personal attributes such as facial images, voice recordings, and behavioural patterns. The unauthorised creation of such replicas not only infringes privacy but also undermines personal autonomy and control over one’s digital identity. However, Puttaswamy addressed informational privacy and State surveillance rather than generative AI. Consequently, while Article 21 provides a strong constitutional foundation, it does not establish clear rules on consent, ownership, or liability, highlighting the need for a dedicated legal framework to regulate AI-generated digital replicas.
3.2 Judicial Recognition of Personality Rights in the Digital Era
Indian courts have increasingly recognised that personality rights protect not only commercial interests but also an individual’s identity against unauthorised digital exploitation. In Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Others (2023), the Delhi High Court restrained the unauthorised use of the actor’s name, image, voice, and other distinctive attributes through artificial intelligence and digital platforms. The Court acknowledged that AI can replicate and commercially exploit an individual’s persona, causing reputational, economic, and dignitary harm. Similarly, in Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Others (2022), the Delhi High Court prohibited the unauthorised use of the actor’s identity across digital platforms, reaffirming that technological innovation cannot justify identity misappropriation. While these decisions represent significant judicial progress, they remain limited to case-specific injunctive relief and do not address broader issues such as consent, ownership, liability, and remedies. This highlights the need for comprehensive legislation regulating AI-generated digital replicas.
3.3 Statutory Responses: Data Protection, Cyber Law and the Regulatory Vacuum
India’s statutory framework addresses certain challenges posed by artificial intelligence but remains fragmented and does not directly regulate AI-generated digital replicas. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDP Act) establishes a consent-based regime for processing personal data by imposing obligations on Data Fiduciaries and recognising the rights of Data Principals. However, the Act primarily regulates personal data and does not clarify whether AI-generated digital replicas constitute personal data or whether their creation requires fresh consent. Consequently, issues relating to ownership, licensing, and liability remain uncertain. Similarly, the Information Technology Act, 2000, the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, and MeitY advisories focus on cybersecurity and intermediary compliance rather than digital identity. This fragmented framework highlights the need for dedicated legislation governing AI-generated digital replicas while balancing innovation with privacy, autonomy, and personality rights.
Towards a Rights-Based Framework for Regulating AI-Generated Digital Replicas
4.1 Digital Identity as a Distinct Legal Interest
Indian law protects aspects of identity through constitutional guarantees, judicial recognition of personality rights, and data protection legislation. However, these protections remain fragmented and do not recognise AI-generated digital replicas as a distinct legal interest. Generative AI can now recreate an individual’s face, voice, expressions, and behavioural traits with remarkable accuracy, raising concerns that extend beyond privacy or commercial misappropriation. Such replicas may affect an individual’s dignity, autonomy, reputation, and control over their digital presence. Therefore, digital identity should be recognised as an independent legal interest, providing a stronger legal basis for addressing harms that existing doctrines do not adequately cover.
4.2 Consent and Accountability as the Cornerstones of Regulation
A future regulatory framework should place informed, explicit, and meaningful consent at its core. AI-generated digital replicas should not be created, commercially exploited, or publicly disseminated without the prior consent of the individual, except in limited circumstances such as legitimate public interest, journalistic reporting, research, parody, or other constitutionally protected forms of expression. Equally important is accountability. AI developers, deployers, platform operators, and other participants in the AI ecosystem should bear proportionate responsibility for preventing the misuse of digital replicas by implementing appropriate safeguards throughout the AI lifecycle.
4.3 From Regulatory Fragmentation to a Comprehensive Legal Framework
The existing Indian legal framework adopts a largely reactive approach, requiring individuals to rely on constitutional remedies, personality rights, or statutory protections on a case-by-case basis. A dedicated legal framework should therefore define AI-generated digital replicas, recognise digital identity as a protected legal interest, establish clear rules on consent, licensing, and commercial use, and provide effective civil remedies, regulatory penalties, and enforcement mechanisms for unauthorised use. It should also impose due diligence obligations on AI developers and intermediaries. Such a framework would promote responsible innovation while ensuring that technological advancement remains consistent with the constitutional values of dignity, autonomy, privacy, and individual liberty.
Conclusion
The rapid development of generative artificial intelligence has challenged traditional legal understandings of identity, privacy, and personality rights. AI-generated digital replicas can realistically reproduce an individual’s voice, appearance, and mannerisms, creating legal concerns that extend beyond copyright infringement or commercial misappropriation. Although Indian law provides protection through Article 21 of the Constitution, judicial recognition of personality rights, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, and the Information Technology Act, 2000, these safeguards remain fragmented and do not comprehensively regulate AI-generated digital replicas.
This article argues that digital identity should be recognised as a distinct legal interest deserving independent protection. A future regulatory framework should be based on informed consent, accountability, and effective enforcement while balancing innovation with individual rights. As AI continues to evolve, India’s legal framework must also develop to ensure that technological progress remains consistent with the constitutional values of dignity, autonomy, privacy, and individual liberty.
Cases
Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1.
ICC Development (International) Ltd v Arvee Enterprises 2003 (26) PTC 245 (Del).
D.M. Entertainment Pvt Ltd v Baby Gift House 2010 (44) PTC 520 (Del).
Amitabh Bachchan v Rajat Nagi and Others, CS (Comm) 819/2022 (Delhi High Court, 25 November 2022).
Anil Kapoor v Simply Life India and Others, CS (Comm) 652/2023 (Delhi High Court, 20 September 2023).
Statutes
Constitution of India, art 21.
Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023.
Information Technology Act 2000.
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules 2021.
Government Documents
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Advisory for Intermediaries and Platforms on Artificial Intelligence Models (Government of India, 15 March 2024).
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (Gazette of India, 11 August 2023).
Books
P Narayanan, Intellectual Property Law (Eastern Law House, 8th edn, 2022).
Avtar Singh, Introduction to the Law of Torts and Consumer Protection (LexisNexis, latest edn).
V N Shukla, Constitution of India (Eastern Book Company, latest edn).
Journal Articles
Daniel J Solove, ‘A Taxonomy of Privacy’ (2006) 154 University of Pennsylvania Law Review
Samuel D Warren and Louis D Brandeis, ‘The Right to Privacy’ (1890) 4 Harvard Law Review 193.
Jennifer E Rothman, ‘The Right of Publicity: Privacy Reimagined for a Public World’ (Harvard University Press 2018).
