Adv Moses Pinto
Personality rights are becoming the new frontier of celebrity litigation in India. What once appeared to be a limited legal remedy against fake endorsements, morphed photographs and unauthorised commercial use of a famous face, is now moving into a more difficult area: films, history, public memory and the freedom to retell events already known to society.
The issue has returned to public attention after actor Salman Khan approached the Delhi High Court against the makers of Kala Hiran: The Battle for Legacy, a film reportedly inspired by the blackbuck poaching controversy. The petition is said to allege violation of personality rights and object to identifying features allegedly associated with the actor, including the use of a lookalike character and visual references linked with him (Times of India, 2026; LiveLaw, 2026).
At first glance, many readers may instinctively sympathise with the celebrity. After all, no person should have his name, image, voice or likeness commercially exploited without permission. Yet the law cannot stop at that simple proposition. It must also ask whether a public figure can restrain the retelling of events that have already been investigated, prosecuted, reported and debated in public for decades.
What personality rights protect
Personality rights are not yet codified in one Indian statute. They have grown through court decisions, common law principles, privacy jurisprudence and intellectual property concepts. They protect the identifiable attributes of a person, such as name, image, likeness, voice, signature and, in the digital age, even AI generated versions of these attributes (Gadodia, 2024).
Indian courts have traced these rights through Article 21 of the Constitution, the right to privacy, the law of passing off, copyright principles, trade mark law and unfair commercial exploitation. Earlier decisions such as ICC Development v Arvee Enterprises (2003), D.M. Entertainment v Baby Gift House (2010), and Titan Industries v Ramkumar Jewellers (2012) helped build the foundation of this doctrine.
The Delhi High Court’s order in favour of Amitabh Bachchan in 2022 marked a significant shift because protection was granted not merely against known defendants, but also against unknown persons who might misuse his personality through future technologies such as NFTs and the metaverse (Gadodia, 2024).
Two very different cases
The recent proceedings involving Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Salman Khan show why personality rights cannot be viewed through one legal lens.
In the Aishwarya Rai Bachchan matter, relief was reportedly sought against unauthorised use of her name, image and likeness through artificial intelligence platforms, digital manipulation and online exploitation. Such cases concern the appropriation of identity itself. The objective is not public debate, journalism or historical narration. It is the unauthorised use of a celebrity’s persona for digital or commercial gain.
Judicial intervention in such circumstances appears both understandable and necessary. The same logic applies to recent Delhi High Court protection reportedly granted in favour of Varun Dhawan, Vivek Oberoi, Jubin Nautiyal, Akira Nandan and others against AI generated deepfakes, fake merchandise and digital impersonation (SCC Times, 2026; Times of India, 2026).
The Salman Khan litigation, however, raises a different question.
The blackbuck controversy was not a private episode. It was investigated by public authorities, litigated in court, reported by newspapers and discussed on television for decades. The public record did not arise from gossip alone. It arose from criminal proceedings, legal reporting and judicial developments.
That distinction matters. The law has traditionally recognised a difference between preventing false endorsement and restricting the retelling of public events. One concerns commercial exploitation. The other concerns public memory.
When newspapers become history
The irony is difficult to ignore. Many facts that later become the subject of personality rights litigation first enter the public domain through newspapers themselves. Journalists report police action, court proceedings, witness testimony, legal arguments and judicial orders as events unfold.
Over time, those reports become part of the historical record.
If personality rights are expanded too widely, newspapers may find themselves in the strange position of being allowed to report history while it is happening, but later seeing that same history restricted when it is retold through cinema, biography, documentary or public commentary.
That would be a serious consequence for press freedom.
The mimicry question
There is another practical difficulty. Indian public culture thrives on imitation. Comedians mimic actors. Fans recreate famous dialogues. Performers imitate voices. Social media users create tribute videos. Satirists draw from public personalities. Cinema itself often borrows from public memory.
If every recognisable trait becomes private property, where does creativity end and infringement begin?
Would a comedian require permission before imitating a film star? Would a biographer need prior approval before describing a controversial phase of a celebrity’s career? Could a filmmaker dramatise a public event without obtaining consent from the person portrayed?
These are not imaginary concerns. They arise naturally once personality rights move beyond false endorsement and enter the domain of history, commentary and art.
Lessons from abroad
International experience shows that this balance is difficult everywhere. The United States recognises publicity rights, but those rights are frequently tested against strong First Amendment free speech protections. The European Union gives greater weight to dignity, privacy and data protection, especially where biometric data and digital identity are concerned. India presently stands somewhere in between, with courts developing personality rights through Article 21, but without a clear statute defining their limits (Arora, 2025).
