Author – Shruti Mehta
Introduction:
The law has long recognised that reputation has value. In modern commercial reality, however, identity itself has become an asset. A person’s name, image, voice, signature, likeness or distinctive traits may carry significant economic worth, particularly when associated with public recognition. The unauthorised commercial exploitation of such identity raises a fundamental question: does an individual have a proprietary interest in their persona?
Indian law does not answer this question through legislation. There is no statutory provision that expressly defines or codifies “personality rights” or the “right of publicity.” Instead, the doctrine has evolved incrementally through judicial decisions. Courts have drawn from constitutional principles, common law remedies and intellectual property statutes to construct a framework that protects identity against commercial misappropriation.
At the same time, this evolution has not been linear. While courts have expanded protection in cases involving endorsements and digital misuse, judicial commentary has also cautioned against converting fame into an absolute monopoly. Personality rights, therefore, occupy a delicate space between property, privacy and free speech.
This article examines the conceptual basis, legal foundation and contemporary contours of personality rights in India.
What are Personality Rights in India:
Personality rights, in their broadest sense, refer to the right of an individual to protect and control the commercial use of their identity. The identity of a person is not confined merely to their name. It extends to attributes that uniquely identify them in the public domain, including their likeness, image, voice, signature, distinctive appearance and other recognisable aspects of persona. Where such attributes have acquired goodwill or commercial value, unauthorised use may result in economic exploitation and reputational harm.
Indian courts have recognised that identity may constitute an enforceable legal interest. In ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises the Delhi High Court observed that the right of publicity vests in an individual and that no entity can claim proprietary rights over a person’s identity without authorisation. The Court clarified that the right of publicity originates from the right to privacy and is inherent to the individual whose persona is sought to be commercially exploited. This decision is frequently regarded as one of the earliest judicial recognitions of publicity rights in India.
The commercial dimension of personality rights was further articulated in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers where the Delhi High Court restrained the unauthorised use of images of well known personalities in an advertisement. The Court recognised that a celebrity has the right to control the commercial exploitation of their persona and that unauthorised use in advertising amounts to infringement of the right of publicity. The reasoning reflects judicial acknowledgment that identity, when associated with goodwill, functions as a valuable commercial asset.
The constitutional foundation of personality rights is often traced to the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court recognised that the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and personal liberty. Although the case concerned, unauthorised publication of an individual’s life story, the Court’s recognition of autonomy over personal identity laid the groundwork for subsequent development of publicity-based claims.
Different Kinds of Personality Rights:
Personality rights in India have developed along two principal dimensions that emerge from both doctrinal synthesis and judicial practice. The first dimension is the right of publicity, which protects an individual’s ability to control and commercially exploit their identity. The second is the right to privacy, which protects an individual’s autonomy and personal sphere against unauthorised disclosure or misuse. These dimensions often overlap in practice, but they reflect distinct legal interests that justify differing legal responses.
The right of publicity encompasses the right of an individual to prevent others from commercially exploiting their name, image, voice, likeness and other distinctive aspects of their persona without consent. As defined in academic literature, the right to publicity protects one’s identity, existence and likeness from being imitated and commercially appropriated by third parties without authorisation. This right springs from the recognition that personal identity may acquire economic value beyond its source, particularly where the individual’s reputation has achieved public recognition or goodwill. The right of publicity is thus grounded in the protection of economic interests arising from persona as a marketable commodity, making it analogous to intellectual property rights in function if not in textual origin.
In contrast, the right to privacy seeks to protect the individual’s personal zone of autonomy against intrusive exposure or dissemination of personal information. The Supreme Court’s recognition of privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India confirmed the constitutional basis upon which privacy related personality claims rest. In the context of personality rights, the right to privacy ensures that an individual’s name, image or likeness is not used in ways that nvade their personal life or reveal intimate aspects of their identity without consent. Privacy-based personality protection thus functions independently of commercial exploitation and protects the dignity of individuals, irrespective of their fame or public status
In practice, these two dimensions often converge. A celebrity’s voice or likeness used in an unauthorised advertisement without consent would implicate both privacy and publicity interests, as the disparagement of personal autonomy and economic exploitation coincide. Similarly, digital misappropriation of a person’s identity through AI generated content implicates not only commercial harm but also intrusion into the personal sphere of representation. While the right of publicity prioritises commercial control, the right to privacy safeguards the personal sanctity of identity, and Indian jurisprudence continues to develop these streams to address the multifaceted harms associated with misuse of persona.
The Growing Need of Personality Rights in India:
The need for personality rights in India arises from the intersection of evolving commercial realities, technological advancements and constitutional values. Identity today functions as a tradable asset in ways that were unimaginable in earlier legal frameworks. The widespread use of digital media has transformed personal identity into a commodifiable resource, capable of generating significant revenue through advertising, endorsements, image licensing and social media outreach. In the absence of enforceable controls over this commodification, individuals are exposed to the risk of unauthorised exploitation, dilution of reputation, and economic loss.
Personality rights are essential to prevent commercial misappropriation of identity in contexts where the unauthorised use of a person’s name, image or likeness can create a false impression of endorsement or association. Without such protection, third parties could freely exploit another’s identity for monetary gain, mislead consumers, and capitalize on another’s reputation without contributing to its creation or maintenance. The right of publicity thus serves to ensure that the benefits of persona-based commercial use accrue to the individual who generated the goodwill in the first instance rather than to opportunistic third parties.
Moreover, the rise of artificial intelligence and digital content production has heightened the need for a robust legal framework. Synthetic audio-visual content, deep-fakes and automated impersonations pose significant risks to individual reputation and dignity, particularly where they are deployed in commercial advertising, defamatory material or explicit content without the subject’s consent. Personality rights offer a mechanism to restrain such misuse and provide remedies where interference with identity results in actual harm. In recent decisions, courts have recognised that unauthorized digital replications of voice, image or style can dilute persona and cause damage that is both economic and reputational. This recognition underscores the urgency of protecting persona in a digital ecosystem where replication is instantaneous and proliferation uninhibited.
Finally, personality rights serve a broader purpose within constitutional democracy by delineating the boundary between private autonomy and public interest. While freedom of speech and expression remains paramount, it does not justify third parties using another’s identity in commercial contexts without consent. A developed personality rights doctrine helps balance these competing values, ensuring that individuals retain autonomy over their identity and its commercial use while preventing unjust enrichment at the expense of personal reputation. The need for such a balance is particularly acute in India, where statutory protection is absent and judicial intervention fills the gap to safeguard both economic and dignity-based interests in identity.
Conclusion:
Personality rights in India occupy a unique and evolving space in the legal landscape, shaped by constitutional imperatives, commercial realities and rapid technological change. Though uncodified, the doctrine recognises that personal identity can possess both dignity-based and economic value, deserving of legal protection against unauthorized exploitation. The right to publicity protects the commercial dimensions of persona, while the right to privacy safeguards personal autonomy and control over one’s identity. Together these strands provide a coherent framework for addressing misuse of identity in both traditional and digital contexts.
The necessity of personality rights is underscored by the commercialisation of identity and the increasing prevalence of digital misappropriation. Without effective protection, individuals, particularly public figures, face exploitation that can damage reputation, mislead consumers and result in economic loss. While statutory reform could provide greater clarity and predictability, the current judicial framework performs the essential function of protecting personality interests through existing constitutional and intellectual property principles. As technology continues to develop, the doctrine of personality rights will play an increasingly important role in safeguarding dignity, reputation and economic interests, preserving the autonomy of identity in the modern era.
Shruti Mehta, Associate, Solomon & Co.
About Solomon & Co.
Solomon & Co. (Advocates & Solicitors) was founded in 1909 and is amongst India’s oldest law-firms. The Firm is a full-service firm that provides legal service to Indian and international companies and high net-worth individuals on all aspects of Indian law.
“Disclaimer”
The information contained in this article is intended solely to provide general guidance on matters of interest for the personal use of the reader, who accepts full responsibility for its use. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. As such, it should not be used as a substitute for consultation with a competent adviser. Before making any decision or taking any action, the reader should always consult a professional adviser relating to the relevant article posting.
Copyright © Solomon & Co.2026. All rights reserved.