INTRODUCTION
The Delhi High Court has issued orders to protect [1]the personality rights of celebrities and public figures from unauthorized commercial use. These individuals sought legal action against the misuse of their names, photos, and AI-generated content. The court has granted interim injunctions and John Doe orders to remove unauthorized content and prevent misuse of their personas. This highlights the importance of understanding personality rights, especially in the context of AI technologies like Deepfakes that exploit public figures for commercial gain.
Personality rights protect an[2] individual from unauthorized use of their name, voice, image, or likeness for commercial purposes.
These entitlements primarily protect against the commercial exploitation of personal characteristics such as name, likeness, signature, and so on. For celebrities, these personality rights carry economic value, as any unauthorized use taps into their reputations to promote a product or generate income from it.
Privacy rights safeguard individuals, including non-celebrities, from harm without considering any economic or commercial dimensions. This includes protection against unwanted exposure, the right to solitude, defamation, and sextortion. It helps to prevent the misrepresentation of personal information. In India, the Supreme Court acknowledged the right to privacy in the 2017 Puttaswamy judgment, recognizing it as an extension of dignity and personal liberty under Article 21.
One such prominent case that deals with the issue of personality rights is Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. The actor approached [3]the court for the protection of his personality rights, including his name, voice, likeness, gestures, and signatures, from unauthorized commercial use.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner has brought a case before the court addressing the alleged misuse of his personality traits by multiple defendants. He claims that these defendants engaged in a range of actions that improperly exploited. The defendants in this case violated the personality and publicity rights of actor Anil Kapoor, raising serious concerns about the unauthorized use of his identity and reputation. A key infringement involved falsely presenting Kapoor as a motivational speaker, misleading the public, and linking his name to commercial activities without his consent.
They also employed deceptive practices, [4]known as “dark patterns,” charging consumers fees by exploiting Kapoor’s popularity. Such practices are particularly pertinent under the recently notified Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns, 2023, as outlined in the [5]Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Additionally, the defendants unlawfully used Kapoor’s name, photographs, voice, and iconic dialogues for financial gain. They manipulated AI tools to create false content, digitally altering Kapoor’s image alongside other celebrities, thus damaging his public persona. They also commercially exploited his likeness on various merchandise without authorization, including mobile wallpapers and apparel, leading to economic and reputational harm.
ARGUMENTS
(Anil Kapoor) Plaintiff
- Violation of Personality Rights
The defendants were using his name, image, voice, and likeness without his consent. This amounted to infringement of his right to publicity and personality rights.
His personality traits and identity were being used for commercial gain, including: Fake merchandise, unauthorized endorsements, and AI-generated content. Such use misled the public into believing he endorsed those products.
- Misuse of Catchphrases
Popular phrases associated with him (like “Jhakaas”) were used commercially. These phrases have acquired distinctiveness and are closely associated with him.
- AI and Deepfake Misuse
Use of AI tools to morph or imitate his voice and appearance violated his rights. Such misuse could damage his reputation and goodwill.
- Passing Off
The defendants were attempting to pass off their goods/services as being connected to him. This causes confusion among consumers.
- Irreparable Harm
Unauthorized use harms his image, which he has built over decades. Monetary compensation alone would not be sufficient.
- Right to Control Commercial Exploitation
As a public figure, he retains exclusive rights to commercially exploit his persona.
(Simply Life India & Others) Defendants
- Freedom of Speech and Expression-
Use of his name/image may fall under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution; if used in parody, commentary, or satire, it may be protected speech.
- Public Figure Doctrine
As a well-known celebrity, he is subject to public discussion and reference; public figures cannot completely restrict mention of their name or likeness.
- No Direct Commercial Endorsement
The defendants may argue that they did not explicitly claim endorsement. Mere resemblance or reference does not automatically amount to passing off.
- Generic Use of Phrases
Words like “Jhakaas” may be argued to be common slang and not exclusively owned.
- No Trademark Registration (if argued)
Unless registered as a trademark, exclusive rights over certain expressions may be disputed.
- Lack of Consumer Confusion
They may argue that consumers would not reasonably believe that he endorsed the product.
RATIONALE
The court granted the petitioner relief [6]by issuing ex parte orders against the defendants and directed the MeitY to remove the objectionable content from all the platforms. The courts rationale was based on the fact that just by a person being a public personality does not deprive him of his right to privacy, the court also relied on the doctrine of publicity rights wherein the celebrity has a unique right over his personality traits such as name, voice, likeness, gestures, etc. and the person enjoys a goodwill attached to is name. [7]If any person uses his personality to create false propaganda or to gain commercially through his name without obtaining any prior consent of such person to use it, then that amounts to fraud or violation of such publicity rights, and the concerned public figure has a right to obtain an injunction and removal of such unauthorized content. It drew from precedents like [8]Bette Midler v. Ford Motor Co. and Indian cases (e.g., [9]D.M. Entertainment v. Baby Gift House), affirming passing off and dilution claims.
JUDGEMENT
In issuing an ex parte injunction[10] and favoring the plaintiff, the court effectively emphasizes the protection of the actor’s personality rights and right to privacy, acknowledging the significant and irreparable harm that could arise if the defendants were permitted to continue their infringing activities unchecked. This proactive stance highlights the court’s dedication to safeguarding individuals’ rights and reputations from unwanted exploitation. Furthermore, the ruling sets a historic precedent by illustrating the intersection of intellectual property rights and constitutional protections within the realm of celebrity protection. By meticulously detailing the rights and responsibilities associated with fame, the decision provides essential guidance for navigating the intricate legal landscape of celebrity rights in the digital era. To support this analysis, the Delhi High Court, under the bench of Justice Pratibha M Singh, referenced the landmark case of [11]R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., commonly known as the ‘Auto Shankar case,’ which prohibits any form of misuse or commercial exploitation of a celebrity’s name, voice, persona, and likeness.
DEFECTS IN LAW
The injunction provides overly broad protection for the celebrity regarding the use of his name, voice, likeness, and expression. While it aims to safeguard the commercial rights associated with a celebrity’s traits, it also creates a [12]chilling effect on free expression and cultural discourse. This is particularly troubling when common phrases like “Jhakaas” become part of everyday language; the judgment restricts the use of parody and fan-created content.
Furthermore, the ruling relies loosely on various legal doctrines, such as passing off, tort law, and constitutional privacy, but lacks a clear and coherent statutory foundation, resulting in confusing precedents.
The employment of the fundamental “right to livelihood” in the case of affluent celebrities and merchandise sales is a rather suspicious position of law. [13]It was stated that these endorsements were one of their major sources of livelihood. It was also argued that making the sales of merchandise like mugs and shirts related to their livelihood, which is actually in the millions, is rather “mysterious” and downplays the very significance of the right to livelihood.
Additionally, the determination of “publicity rights” legal cases will only benefit wealthy celebrities while failing to protect ordinary individuals against similar AI-related concerns, including deepfakes. It has been observed that publicity rights legal cases are “ex-post facto remedies that don’t stop the creation of deepfakes” and instead serve principally to protect wealthy celebrities with substantial financial resources to fight legal battles. It is, therefore, an example of the ruling’s failure with regard to offering a remedy to societal concerns against AI. The order was granted ex parte.
Legal analysis suggests that this reflects a “judicial impulse to protect celebrity interests without sufficient consideration of constitutional values,” such as free speech, thereby setting a precedent without a full hearing.
Additionally, the implications of personality rights should be considered in the context of a case in Denmark, where the law grants individuals copyright over their persona. However, this does not address the unethical use of deepfakes by those individuals, such as for inciting communal violence. Granting property rights over one’s personality could lead to a situation where an average person must charge a licensing fee just to have their photo removed. Furthermore, for copyright to apply, there needs to be a unique and creative expression involved.
INFERENCE
The case of Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. demonstrates the significant need to protect personality rights in the current digital age, considering the rising threat of the unauthorized use of the personalities of public figures due to modern technology. The intervention of the Delhi High Court in the case indicates the increased recognition of the importance of the protection of the economic and reputational interests of celebrities from such unauthorized use, particularly in the context of the use of AI technology. The contrast in the concept of personality rights and privacy rights highlights the increased need for legal structures that respond to rising technology to protect the rights of citizens and society at large. The approaches to such unauthorized use, such as the use of infringement injunctions and John Doe orders, are critical measures in addressing the issue, but they also create some level of fear concerning the measures to be taken to protect freedom and other socially important rights in such cases.
Anubhav Sharma, Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, NMIMS Mumbai
[1] DRISHTI IAS, Personality Rights (last visited Feb 8, 2026)
[2] D Vaishali, Personality Rights in India: Available Safeguards Against Exploitation, 5 IJLMH, 800, 800-801 (2022)
[3] Sonam Nanda, Protecting Celebrity Persona and Commercial Interests: Analysis of Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., SURANA AND SURANA INTERNATIONAL ATTORNEYS, (Feb 8 2026, 9:27 PM), Protecting Celebrity Persona and Commercial Interests: Analysis of Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. – SURANA & SURANA
[4] SFLC.IN, Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India • Software Freedom Law Center, India (Feb 9, 2026)
[5] The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 2, No. 35, Acts of Parliament, 2019 (India)
[6] Sonam Nanda, Protecting Celebrity Persona and Commercial Interests: Analysis of Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., SURANA AND SURANA INTERNATIONAL ATTORNEYS, (Feb 8 2026, 9:27 PM), Protecting Celebrity Persona and Commercial Interests: Analysis of Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. – SURANA & SURANA
[7] Vanshika Gupta, Anil Kapoor vs. Simply Life India and Ors. 4 IJALR 1, 1-3 (2023)
[8] Midler v. Ford Motor Co., 849 F.2d 460 9th Cir. 1988
[9] D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors. (2010 SCC OnLine Del 4790)
[10] Pallavi Tiwari, Anil Kapoor vs. Simply Life India and Ors.: Perspective of Indian Judiciary on Protection of Celebrity Rights, 4 VULJ 1, 6-7 (2024)
[11] R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu 1995 AIR 264, 1994 SCC (6) 632
[12] Aparajita Lath, Personality rights: The law must not overprotect fame, SCO (Feb, 9, 2026, 10:37 PM), https://www.scobserver.in/journal/personality-rights-the-law-must-not-overprotect-fame/
[13] KHURANA & KHURANA, https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2025/02/19/understanding-the-relevance-of-the-anil-kapoor-vs-simply-life-india-ors-case, (Feb 9, 2026)