Personality Rights in the Age of AI Cloning and Deepfakes: Is Indian Law Ready?

Introduction

Imagine seeing a video of a well-known actor making a controversial statement, only to later discover that the video was never real. In today’s digital age, artificial intelligence has made such situations increasingly possible through technologies such as AI cloning and deepfakes. With access to just a few voice samples, photographs, or video clips, AI systems can replicate a person’s face, voice, expressions, mannerisms, and even emotional tone with remarkable accuracy. While these developments have legitimate applications in entertainment, education, and innovation, their misuse has given rise to significant legal and ethical concerns.[1]

Deepfakes and AI cloning have made identity exploitation easier and more damaging than ever before. A person’s image can be inserted into fabricated videos, their voice can be cloned to create fraudulent communications, and their persona can be commercially exploited without consent. Such misuse may result in serious reputational harm, significant financial fraud, privacy violations, and emotional distress, while also facilitating misinformation and eroding public trust in digital media.

This raises a pressing legal question: is Indian law adequately equipped to protect individuals against AI-enabled misuse of identity? In India, personality rights broadly refer to an individual’s right to control the commercial and public use of their identity, including their name, image, voice, likeness, and persona.[2] However, these rights are not protected by a dedicated statute and have largely evolved through judicial interpretation, creating a significant legislative gap.[3]

This article argues that although Indian courts have progressively recognised personality rights through constitutional principles and judicial innovation, the existing legal framework remains insufficient to effectively address the challenges posed by AI cloning and deepfakes.

Understanding Personality Rights and Existing Legal Framework in India

To understand why AI cloning and deepfakes pose such a serious legal challenge, it is necessary to first examine the nature of personality rights and how identity exploitation has evolved in the digital age.

Personality rights broadly refer to an individual’s right to control and protect the commercial as well as public use of attributes closely associated with their identity, including their name, image, voice, likeness, signature, gestures, and overall persona.[4] These rights are generally understood through two interrelated dimensions: the right to privacy and the right to publicity. While privacy protects autonomy, dignity, and personal space from unauthorized intrusion, publicity safeguards the commercial value attached to a person’s identity and enables control over its commercial exploitation.[5]

Traditionally, disputes involving personality rights arose from unauthorized advertisements, misleading endorsements, or misuse of photographs and recordings. However, artificial intelligence has fundamentally altered both the nature and scale of identity exploitation. AI cloning has introduced a new paradigm where identity is no longer merely copied but can be synthetically recreated.  AI systems can even analyse limited inputs such as voice samples, photographs, or video footage to generate highly realistic digital replicas of facial features, voice patterns, speech style, expressions, and behavioural mannerisms.[6] Unlike traditional infringement, which usually involves unauthorized reproduction of existing material, AI cloning enables the creation of entirely new synthetic content based on learned identity traits. This distinction is legally significant because the law has historically been better equipped to address copying than synthetic generation.

This concern becomes even more serious in the context of voice cloning. A person’s voice is not merely sound; it functions as a distinctive biometric identifier closely tied to identity itself. AI can replicate vocal tone, pitch, rhythm, and speaking style with remarkable precision, making it possible to generate speech that sounds authentic despite never having been spoken by the original individual. This creates a major legal challenge because copyright law may protect a specific recording or performance, but it does not adequately protect the vocal identity itself.

A closely related phenomenon is that of deepfakes, namely AI-generated or AI-manipulated synthetic media that create highly realistic but false representations of reality.[7] Deepfakes may appear as altered videos, fabricated audio recordings, or manipulated images showing individuals saying or doing things they never actually did. The harms caused by such misuse operate at both an individual and societal level, resulting in reputational harm, privacy violations, financial fraud, misinformation, and erosion of trust in digital media.

Against this backdrop, an important question arises: does Indian law provide adequate protection against such harms? At present, India has no dedicated statute governing personality rights or AI-enabled identity misuse. Protection is instead derived from constitutional safeguards, common law remedies, and sector-specific legislation.

A significant constitutional basis for protecting personality rights lies in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.[8] Its scope has been judicially expanded to include dignity, autonomy, privacy, and control over personal information. This foundation became particularly strong after Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right.[9] Informational privacy and personal autonomy become directly relevant where AI replicates an individual’s face, voice, or other personal attributes without consent.

Personality rights in India have also developed through common law remedies such as passing off, misappropriation, and invasion of privacy. Passing off protects against false representation that misleads the public into believing that a person has endorsed or is associated with a product or service. While useful in cases involving fake endorsements or unauthorized commercial exploitation, these remedies were largely designed for conventional misuse and become less effective when dealing with highly sophisticated AI-generated synthetic media.

Certain statutory provisions offer limited protection. The Information Technology Act, 2000 addresses cyber misconduct such as identity theft, impersonation, and privacy violations.[10] Provisions such as Sections 66C, 66D, and 66E may become relevant where deepfakes are used for fraud, personation, or unauthorized dissemination of private content. However, a major limitation remains: the Act primarily regulates the consequences of digital misuse rather than the creation of AI-generated synthetic media itself.

The Copyright Act, 1957 provides another possible route of protection, particularly with respect to sound recordings, cinematograph films, and performers’ rights.[11] However, copyright protects expression, not identity itself. A major limitation arises because AI often does not copy a specific recording but instead generates entirely new synthetic content that imitates a person’s voice, speech patterns, or mannerisms. Thus, while copyright may protect a recorded performance, it may fail to adequately protect the underlying personality being replicated. In many ways, existing intellectual property laws protect only fragmented components of identity rather than the holistic persona of an individual.

Similarly, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 may cover facial data, voice data, and biometric identifiers used to train AI systems without consent.[12] However, while it regulates data collection and processing, it does not clearly resolve legal issues surrounding synthetic outputs generated after such data has already been processed.

Thus, although Indian law provides multiple avenues for legal recourse, these protections remain fragmented and largely reactive. Most existing laws were enacted in a pre-generative AI era and were not designed to address challenges such as deepfakes, voice cloning, and synthetic identity manipulation.

III. Judicial Recognition and Critical Evaluation

In the absence of a dedicated statutory framework, personality rights in India have largely evolved through judicial interpretation. Courts have progressively expanded protection from traditional commercial misuse to more complex forms of digital identity exploitation. However, despite this judicial progress, a critical evaluation reveals that Indian law remains ill-equipped to fully address the challenges of AI cloning and deepfakes.

An important early step in personality rights jurisprudence came in ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises.[13] The Delhi High Court recognised the concept of publicity rights and observed that such rights originate from the right to privacy. The Court acknowledged that an individual has a legitimate interest in controlling the commercial use of their identity, thereby laying an important doctrinal foundation for personality rights in India.

The jurisprudence was further strengthened in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers.[14] The Delhi High Court held that a celebrity has the right to control the commercial use of their identity and recognised that a person’s name, image, and likeness can possess significant commercial value. This reinforced the principle that identity is not merely personal in nature but may also function as a commercially valuable asset.

The shift from traditional endorsement disputes to digital identity misuse became more evident in Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi.[15] The Delhi High Court granted broad protection against unauthorized use of Amitabh Bachchan’s name, image, voice, and persona in fraudulent online activities. The judgment reflected judicial awareness that personality rights violations in the digital age increasingly occur through online fraud, impersonation, and deceptive virtual representations.

A major development came in Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India.[16] This case is particularly significant in the context of AI cloning and deepfakes because it directly addressed modern forms of unauthorized digital replication. The Delhi High Court granted protection not only to Anil Kapoor’s name and image but also to his voice, dialogue delivery, signature expressions, and distinctive mannerisms. This marked a major jurisprudential advancement, as the Court recognised that personality extends beyond static identifiers such as photographs or names.

The significance of the Anil Kapoor judgment lies in its recognition that identity in the digital age includes dynamic and expressive attributes. Voice, speech patterns, gestures, and behavioural mannerisms are often what make an individual instantly recognizable. In the context of AI cloning, these are precisely the attributes that artificial intelligence can replicate with alarming precision.

Despite these judicial developments, several critical gaps remain.

First, the most fundamental weakness in Indian law is the absence of a dedicated statutory framework governing personality rights. Protection continues to rely heavily on judicial precedents and scattered statutory provisions, creating uncertainty regarding the scope and enforceability of such rights. While judicial innovation has helped bridge legal gaps, excessive reliance on case law makes protection largely reactive and case-specific.

Second, existing legal frameworks were primarily designed to address copying and reproduction, not synthetic generation.[17] Traditional intellectual property regimes assume infringement occurs when existing material is copied without authorization. AI cloning disrupts this framework by generating entirely new synthetic outputs based on learned identity traits. This creates a serious legal problem. If an AI-generated voice clip sounds identical to a celebrity’s voice but does not copy any specific recording, proving infringement becomes difficult. Thus, the law appears better equipped to address piracy than synthetic identity replication.

Third, significant uncertainty persists regarding voice rights and biometric identity.[18] Voice occupies a uniquely complex legal position, functioning simultaneously as a personal identifier, biometric marker, performative attribute, and commercially valuable asset. Indian law currently provides no clear doctrinal framework for resolving these overlaps. This becomes particularly concerning because AI voice cloning has emerged as one of the most dangerous forms of identity exploitation, enabling fraudulent calls, fake endorsements, and manipulated audio with minimal data.

Another major concern is liability allocation within AI ecosystems. When a harmful deepfake is created and disseminated, responsibility may potentially arise at multiple levels, including the AI developer, the platform hosting the content, the user generating the deepfake, and the person further circulating it. Existing Indian law provides no clear framework for allocating responsibility among these actors, making accountability difficult.

Finally, the present framework remains largely reactive rather than preventive.[19] Remedies such as injunctions, takedown orders, and damages may offer relief after a violation occurs, but deepfakes spread at a speed that traditional legal processes struggle to match. By the time courts intervene, reputational, emotional, or financial harm may already be irreversible.

Therefore, although Indian courts have made significant progress in recognising personality rights, judicial recognition alone is no longer sufficient. The central challenge is no longer whether personality rights deserve protection, but whether the law can evolve quickly enough to provide meaningful protection against synthetic identity misuse.

Comparative Perspective and Suggested Reforms

A comparative analysis of foreign jurisdictions shows that India is not alone in facing the challenges posed by AI-driven identity exploitation. However, some jurisdictions offer useful lessons. In the United States, personality rights are protected through the doctrine of the right of publicity, which grants individuals control over the commercial use of their identity, including name, image, voice, and likeness.[20] Similarly, the European Union has adopted a more proactive approach through data protection and AI governance, with instruments such as the GDPR offering stronger protection to biometric and personal data.[21]

India can draw valuable lessons from these jurisdictions while developing a framework suited to its own legal context. First, India should enact a dedicated personality rights statute clearly defining the scope and enforceability of such rights. Second, the law should expressly recognise voice and biometric identity as independently protectable attributes, especially in light of AI voice cloning. Third, India should establish a rapid takedown mechanism for deepfakes and AI-generated identity misuse, since traditional remedies are often too slow to prevent viral harm. Finally, there is an urgent need for a clear AI liability framework that allocates responsibility among developers, platforms, and users involved in creating or disseminating harmful synthetic content.

Any legal reform in this area must carefully balance personality rights with competing values such as free speech, satire, creativity, and technological innovation.

Conclusion

The analysis of India’s legal framework, judicial developments, and comparative approaches makes one thing clear: although Indian law has made notable progress in recognising and protecting personality rights, it is still not fully equipped to address the challenges posed by AI cloning and deepfakes.

Indian courts have significantly expanded protection from traditional commercial misuse to modern forms of digital identity exploitation. However, judicial recognition alone is no longer sufficient. The absence of a dedicated statutory framework, uncertainty surrounding voice rights, lack of clarity regarding AI liability, and the reactive nature of existing remedies reveal major gaps in the present framework.

The real challenge is no longer whether personality rights deserve protection, but whether the law can evolve quickly enough to keep pace with technology. In the age of artificial intelligence, protecting personality rights is no longer solely about commercial value or privacy; it is equally about preserving dignity, autonomy, and an individual’s control over their own identity.

Bibliography

Journal Articles and Research Papers

Augustian, A, ‘Protection of Personality Rights in India: Issues and Challenges’ (2023) 1(1) IPR Journal of Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur 44

Gurumurthy, J, ‘In the Pursuance of a Robust Legal Framework to Address Deepfake Harms: An Analysis of the Indian Legal Discourse’ (2025) 20(1) Indian Journal of Law and Technology art 1

Pandey, K, ‘The Digital Echo: A Legal Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Voice Cloning and Personality Rights in the Indian Music Industry’ (SSRN, 25 March 2026)

Thakur, A, ‘Safeguarding Identity: A Comparative Analysis of Law for Personality Rights in the United States and India’ (SSRN, 10 December 2024)

Websites and Blogs

Bhargava, A and Nigam, P, ‘The Judicially Crafted Shield: India’s Evolving Law of Personality Rights’ (SCC Times, 5 December 2025)

Cases

Amitabh Bachchan v Rajat Nagi 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4110

Anil Kapoor v Simply Life India 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914

ICC Development (International) Ltd v Arvee Enterprises 2003 (26) PTC 245 (Del)

Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

Titan Industries Ltd v Ramkumar Jewellers 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382

Statutes and Regulations

Constitution of India

Copyright Act 1957

Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023

Information Technology Act 2000

Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation)

[1] Jyothsna Gurumurthy, ‘In the Pursuance of a Robust Legal Framework to Address Deepfake Harms: An Analysis of the Indian Legal Discourse’ (2025) 20(1) Indian Journal of Law and Technology art 1

[2] Agnes Augustian, ‘Protection of Personality Rights in India: Issues and Challenges’ (2023) 1(1) IPR Journal of Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur 44

[3] Ajay Bhargava and Phalguni Nigam, ‘The Judicially Crafted Shield: India’s Evolving Law of Personality Rights’ (SCC Times, 5 December 2025)

[4] Agnes Augustian, ‘Protection of Personality Rights in India: Issues and Challenges’ (2023) 1(1) IPR Journal of Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur 44

[5] Ajay Bhargava and Phalguni Nigam, ‘The Judicially Crafted Shield: India’s Evolving Law of Personality Rights’ (SCC Times, 5 December 2025)

[6] Khushal Pandey, ‘The Digital Echo: A Legal Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Voice Cloning and Personality Rights in the Indian Music Industry’ (SSRN, 25 March 2026)

[7] Jyothsna Gurumurthy, ‘In the Pursuance of a Robust Legal Framework to Address Deepfake Harms: An Analysis of the Indian Legal Discourse’ (2025) 20(1) Indian Journal of Law and Technology art 1

[8] Constitution of India, art 21

[9] Justice K S Puttaswamy (Retd) v Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1

[10] Information Technology Act 2000, ss 66C, 66D, 66E, 67 and 67A

[11] Copyright Act 1957, ss 13, 14, 38, 38A and 38B

[12] Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023

[13] ICC Development (International) Ltd v Arvee Enterprises 2003 (26) PTC 245 (Del)

[14] Titan Industries Ltd v Ramkumar Jewellers 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382

[15] Amitabh Bachchan v Rajat Nagi 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4110

[16] Anil Kapoor v Simply Life India 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914

[17] Agnes Augustian, ‘Protection of Personality Rights in India: Issues and Challenges’ (2023) 1(1) IPR Journal of Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur 44

[18] Khushal Pandey, ‘The Digital Echo: A Legal Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Voice Cloning and Personality Rights in the Indian Music Industry’ (SSRN, 25 March 2026)

[19] Jyothsna Gurumurthy, ‘In the Pursuance of a Robust Legal Framework to Address Deepfake Harms: An Analysis of the Indian Legal Discourse’ (2025) 20(1) Indian Journal of Law and Technology art 1

[20] Akash Thakur, ‘Safeguarding Identity: A Comparative Analysis of Law for Personality Rights in the United States and India’ (SSRN, 10 December 2024)

[21] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation)