Personality Rights and the Importance of Preliminary Injunctions in the Digital Era

The definition of personality in its simplest form is the unique pattern of thoughts, and behaviors that makes an individual distinct and noticeable. But, talking specifically about a celebrity’s personality is their unique public persona, shaped by traits like charisma, talent, and influence, like Shah Rukh Khan’s stretched hands gesture, Anil Kapoor’s “Jhakaas”, Jackie Shroff’s “Bhidu” [1] , and many others. The concept of personality rights is relatively new in India, and there is no single statute that governs it; however, remedies are available when commercial considerations are involved. Courts have expanded personality rights through interim injunctions, which balance the need for free speech, right to expression, and the right to occupation. This has been best described in the Supreme Court’s decision of R. Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu [2] . To understand this concept, we must study the importance of interim injunctions in personality rights cases. 

Personality rights refer to a person’s right to control the commercial use of their personality, such as their name, image, mannerisms, voice, catchphrases, and other distinctive characteristics. India does not have a single specific codified statute regulating personality rights, instead, personality rights have evolved significantly through a combination of common law practices, intellectual property statutes, constitutional law, and judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts.

The Trademark Act allows celebrities to register their names, signatures, and even catchphrases. This protects their marks and prevents others from using them for their commercial gain whereas the Copyright Act grants performers exclusive rights over their performances, like the right to object to distortion and the right to object to unwarranted reproduction of the work. 

Personality rights litigation in India is mainly driven by interim reliefs such as preliminary injunctions. Unauthorized commercial use of a celebrity’s personality by selling merchandise bearing celebrity’s name, face, image etc., distribution of pornographic content and publishing videos/posts including celebrities created with the use of deepfake/AI technologies which bring ill repute to the Plaintiff, spreads quickly through social media, e-commerce listings, and online advertisements. Injunctions are the primary tool for preventing unauthorized commercial use and irreversible harm done to an individual's personality. Applications for interim relief in personality rights disputes are handled under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Courts have increasingly granted preliminary injunctions in several high-profile cases, like Arijit Singh’s AI voice cloning case [3] , Karan Johar’s case [4] , Amitabh and Jaya Bacchan’s case [5] , Jagjit Singh’s case [6] , and many others. The following are the three legal tests to be considered before granting a preliminary injunction in such cases: 

• Prima Facie Case – A plausible and arguable legal right that requires protection must be demonstrated. No conclusive proof is required at this stage, just the mere existence of a legally enforceable right, and the defendant’s actions must indicate a violation of that legal right. In the case of T-Series (Supra Cassettes) v. Dreamline Reality [7] , the court held that such ‘celebrity rights’ or ‘publicity rights’ can be claimed only by those persons who have acquired the status of celebrity.
• Balance of Convenience – The court must assess which party would suffer greater damage if preliminary injunction is granted. In such matters, defendants may claim operational hardships, whereas plaintiffs typically face long-term damage to their personality and reputation, which can directly affect their licensing value. In Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com & Ors. [8] , Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction protecting Aishwarya Rai’s personality rights. It was held -

“When the identity of a famous personality is used without their consent or authorization, it may not only lead to commercial detriment to the concerned individual but also impact their right to live with dignity”. 

• Irreparable loss – The plaintiff must establish that, in the absence of interim relief, the damage suffered cannot be adequately recovered by monetary compensation. Such damages are difficult to quantify in monetary terms. In the case of Anil Kapoor Vs. Simply Life India [9] , the Delhi High Court held that –

“If an injunction is not granted in the present case, it will lead to irreparable harm to the plaintiff and his family, not only financially but also with his right to live with dignity.” 

Courts have increasingly emphasized proportionality while granting relief in such cases. Personality rights, though important, are not absolute, and injunctions must be narrowly tailored so as not to suppress criticism, parody, satire, journalism, or artistic expression. Overreaching restraint orders risk hindering legitimate speech and cultural reference, undermining the balance between a celebrity’s persona and the public’s right to free expression. 

• Aman Gupta v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar & Ors. [10]  – The Delhi High held that a public figure’s name, image, voice, likeness, mannerisms, catchphrases and other uniquely identifiable attributes can constitute protectable personality/publicity rights where they have acquired distinctiveness and commercial value. Unauthorised exploitation even through AI or deepfakes can be restrained where it amounts to misappropriation, dilution, tarnishment or commercial exploitation of the individual’s persona.
• Tabassum Jamal Hashmi v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. [11]  - The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that unauthorized use of a celebrity's name/moniker/stage name, image and distinctive attributes for commercial purposes infringes personality/publicity rights and that the protection extends beyond commercial exploitation to disparaging/false content and AI-manipulated material where it harms the celebrity’s goodwill, reputation, privacy and dignity. The Court granted interim injunction against the unauthorized use of the celebrity’s name/moniker/stage name, voice, photographs, movie stills and other personality attributes, including through AI, generative AI, deepfakes, face morphing and GIFs. Further, platforms were directed to remove/block specified content and URLs. 
• Kamal Haasan v. Neeyevidai & John Doe(s) [12]  – Kamal Haasan is a famous actor turned politician. The Madras High Court took note of the applicant’s grievance regarding morphed images and the unauthorized use of his image, name, and screen name on merchandise, observing that such acts caused “incalculable damage” to the reputation and persona of the plaintiff. On that basis, the court found a strong prima facie case and granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the applicant. By impleading John Doe defendants and directing publication in English and Tamil daily newspapers, the court acknowledged the realities of online identity misuse. It granted interim relief effective against anonymous infringers.

The dynamic injunction originally conceived as a targeted remedy against anonymous online piracy has undergone a remarkable doctrinal evolution in India. Once confined to copyright infringement actions against rogue websites, it has now become the preferred weapon of choice in celebrity personality rights litigation. The remedy traces its Indian origins to UTV Software Communications Ltd. v. 1337x.to [13] , where the Delhi High Court invoked the inherent powers of the court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to fashion a blocking order that could extend without a fresh hearing to mirror and redirect websites replicating already-identified infringing locations.

Dynamic injunctions have emerged as an important judicial mechanism for protecting personality rights in the digital environment, particularly where unauthorized use of a person’s name, image, voice, likeness, or other distinctive attributes occurs across rapidly changing online platforms through AI, generative AI, deepfakes, face morphing and other technologies, illustrating the continuing expansion of dynamic protection into AI-generated content. [14]

By applying that "copyright in future works comes into existence immediately upon the work being created, the dynamic injunction mechanism has been mutated into the Dynamic+ injunction wherein the protection extends to future works yet to be created and not merely to existing copyrighted works all within the same ex-parte order.  [15] The Delhi High Court granted a dynamic+ injunction restraining the defendants from exploiting Sadhguru’s personality rights, including his name, image, voice and likeness while dealing with AI-generated deepfakes, manipulated voices, images and speeches of Sadhguru that were being used by rogue websites and online accounts for commercial scams, product promotions and other unauthorized activities. [16]  The latest iteration, the Superlative or Dynamic++ injunction, wherein the courts have moved towards increasingly proactive mechanisms for identifying and disabling newly emerging infringing websites and content dispensing with the requirement of affidavits and judicial oversight for each subsequent infringement. [17] 

Celebrities undoubtedly require effective protection against commercial impersonation, fraudulent endorsements, deepfakes and unauthorized monetization of their identities. At the same time, increasingly broad or proactive injunctions may confer substantial control over the circulation of information concerning public personalities. The danger is particularly acute where orders extend to unidentified defendants, future content or technological forms of expression that have not yet been placed before the court. Such protection could potentially affect parody, satire, criticism, commentary, fan-created content, journalism and other legitimate forms of expression. The challenge for courts is to ensure that the flexibility of these remedies remains directed towards preventing genuine misappropriation and deception, rather than enabling personalities to obtain an overly broad monopoly over their public identity.

Under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (“2021 IT Rules”), social media intermediaries were required to remove unlawful content including impersonation, identity misuse, and defamatory deepfakes etc. within 24 to 36 hours upon receiving actual knowledge through a court order or authorised government notice. The Delhi High Court relied on 2021 IT Rules in the Ajay Devgn v The Artists Planet & Ors [18]  case to direct platforms to take down AI‑generated deepfake videos misusing his identity and to submit Basic Subscriber Information of infringing accounts, thereby highlighting their duty to act on complaints under Rule 3(1)(d) of the 2021 IT Rules. 

The plaintiff, Ajay Devgn, a renowned actor, sought urgent protection against a wide spectrum of online and offline misuse of the actor’s personality which included impersonation for fake performance bookings, sale of unauthorized posters and merchandise on various e-commerce platforms, AI-generated content, deepfake pornographic films, and a blatant misuse of his personality on various social media platforms. The Court granted interim relief restraining the defendants from exploiting the plaintiff’s personality and directing the takedown of multiple infringing images, videos, and pornographic content, while declining to order the removal of a few URLs that were prima facie neither commercialized nor obscene. The order is significant as the Court not only acknowledged substantial harm to the plaintiff but also categorized it into two distinct forms i.e., Commercial Harm that was arising from the unauthorized sale of posters, merchandise, and apparel for profit and Dignitary Harm caused by deep-fake images and videos portraying the plaintiff in a repugnant manner. 

The Court also made a significant procedural observation, noting that many of the complaints in respect to AI generated posts and videos could have been reported to the concerned social media platform and resolved through the statutory Grievance Officer mechanism under the 2021 IT Rules. The Court clarified that if, henceforth, a complainant approaches the court without availing the statutory mechanism under the 2021 IT Rules, the said party may not be entitled to an ex-parte interim injunction.

The amendments to the 2021 IT Rules in February 2026 (“2026 Amendments”) introduces a far more stringent and time‑bound takedown regime and provides for mandatory takedown of AI generated works deemed illegal by a court or government authority within three hours [19] , and deepfakes or non-consensual intimate imagery within two hours [20]  of reporting, drastically reducing response times and strengthening victim protection. The 2026 Amendment imposes proactive obligations on intermediaries such as mandatory labeling of AI generated content, user self-declaration for synthetic media, and proactive detection by platforms [21]  with failure to comply risking the loss of Safe Harbour protections under Section 79 of the IT Act [22] . 

Personality rights in India sits at an interesting intersection of privacy and free speech. Unlike some jurisdictions where these rights are codified in a single statute, India relies on a mix of constitutional principles, common law doctrines, and judicial interpretation. While the Indian judiciary has steadily moved toward recognizing name, image, and likeness rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and passing off, India still lacks a dedicated statute on personality or publicity rights. 

This creates a structural gap. Passing off requires proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of confusion, which is often ill-suited to cases involving non-commercial or expressive uses of identity (such as parody, satire, or digital content). Privacy jurisprudence, while expanding, is not designed to address commercial misappropriation in a consistent manner. 

As a result, enforcement becomes unpredictable, particularly at the interim stage. Courts are frequently required to balance competing interests of free speech versus proprietary control over identity without clear statutory guidance. In this environment, preliminary injunctions become both critical and difficult, critical because unauthorized uses can spread rapidly (especially online), and difficult because the reliefs of the right itself remain uncertain.

Another tension lies between personality rights and freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a). Courts must balance an individual’s control over their identity with the public’s right to information, artistic expression, and satire. For instance, biographical films, parody content, and news reporting frequently test these boundaries. Indian courts have generally leaned toward a case-by-case balancing approach rather than setting rigid rules, which offers flexibility but also leads to unpredictability.

The digital age complicates matters further. With the rise of social media, deepfakes, and AI-generated content, unauthorized use of identity has become easier and more prevalent. Existing legal tools are often reactive and slow, struggling to keep pace with technological misuse. This has led to growing dialogue for a dedicated statutory framework that clearly defines personality rights, outlines enforcement mechanisms, and addresses emerging digital harms.

Personality rights in India have developed into an enforceable framework that protects a celebrity’s identity and commercial persona against unauthorized exploitation. Preliminary injunctions play a pivotal role in this space, yet their effectiveness is constrained by the absence of a clear statutory foundation. Though the 2026 IT Rules Amendment is a positive shift to an urgent, preventive, and technologically proactive approach providing renowned personalities with quicker solutions without always requiring court intervention; a dedicated legislative framework which balances proprietary interests with freedom of expression would not only streamline enforcement but also ensure that interim remedies serve their intended purpose in an increasingly digital environment.