Delhi High Court Tackles the New Frontier of Personality Rights in the Age of AI

When the famed Bollywood actor Abhishek Sharma saw a short, AI‑generated clip of himself singing a popular song – a clip he never filmed, never approved – his first reaction was disbelief. It was uncanny, almost real, but the actor knew better than to accept it as a harmless novelty.

That uneasy feeling turned into a legal battle. Sharma filed a suit against a tech startup that had used sophisticated generative‑AI tools to stitch together his face, voice and mannerisms, creating a video that looked and sounded like the real star. The lawsuit claims a clear violation of his "personality rights" – the right to control the commercial use of one's image, name and reputation.

Last week, the Delhi High Court took up the matter, and the courtroom buzzed with a question that is quickly becoming a global one: How do existing privacy and copyright statutes apply when the infringing content isn’t a photograph or a film, but a line of code that can reproduce a likeness at the click of a button?

Judge Anjali Mehra, who presided over the hearing, asked the parties to define what "personality" actually means in legal terms. She noted that while Indian law recognises a celebrity’s right to prevent unauthorized commercial exploitation, the statutes were drafted long before the era of deep‑fakes and AI avatars. "We are looking at a technology that can generate a person’s voice and image in real time," she said. "Our challenge is to interpret the law in a way that protects individuals without stifling innovation."

For Sharma’s legal team, the argument is straightforward. They point to a series of AI‑driven videos that were posted on social media, each clearly marketed as entertainment but without any disclaimer that the actor was not actually involved. "It misleads the public and erodes the value of the actor’s brand," said his counsel, Priya Desai. The suit also seeks damages for the perceived loss of endorsement opportunities and emotional distress caused by the unauthorized usage.

The defense, representing the tech firm, counters that their product is a "creative tool" and that they did not intend to commercialise the actor’s likeness. They argue that the videos fall under "fair use" because they are transformative and not sold for profit. However, the court has yet to rule on whether the transformation is sufficient to override personality rights.

Legal scholars watching the case say it could set a precedent for a wave of similar disputes. "We are standing at the crossroads of law and technology," notes Professor Arvind K. Rao of Delhi University. "If the court leans too heavily in favour of celebrities, it could hamper legitimate AI research. If it leans too far the other way, it opens the floodgates for invasive digital impersonation."

The hearing also highlighted the lack of specific legislation in India that directly addresses AI‑generated content. While the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules touch upon the removal of harmful content, they don’t specifically regulate synthetic media. Some experts suggest that a new framework, perhaps modeled after the European Union’s AI Act, might be necessary.

As the case unfolds, the broader industry is watching intently. Tech firms are already re‑evaluating their policies on data training sets that include celebrity images and voices. Meanwhile, celebrities are increasingly demanding contractual clauses that restrict AI usage of their persona.

For now, the Delhi High Court has asked both sides to submit detailed affidavits on how AI technology works and how it can be constrained without curbing innovation. A final judgment may still be months away, but the message is clear: the legal system is finally waking up to the reality that AI can, quite literally, put words in anyone’s mouth.