Who Owns Your Identity? Personality Rights in Indian Law
PERSONALITY RIGHTS, IP AND THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION
Intellectual property does not merely protect the intangible creations of the mind. It also safeguards your being — your identity, dignity, and commercial persona.
India does not have a separate statute on personality rights. Instead, these rights flow from constitutional guarantees. Control over one’s identity, as an aspect of personal liberty, is protected under Article 21, while the expression and commercial use of one’s personality find indirect protection under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g). Courts have consistently recognised personality rights as part of the right to life, dignity, and privacy.
In 2010, when Baby Gift House sold toy dolls resembling Daler Mehndi without his permission (DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, 2010), the Delhi High Court held that a celebrity’s name, likeness, and persona cannot be commercially exploited without consent. Such misuse, the Court observed, amounts to passing off and a violation of personality rights. This landmark judgment firmly connected merchandising with personality rights, trademark law, and commercial misrepresentation.
Building on this foundation, courts continued to strengthen these protections. In 2015, while dealing with a film inspired by Rajinikanth (Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions, 2015), the Madras High Court clarified that fame does not mean forfeiture of privacy. Even the most celebrated public figures retain control over how their identity is portrayed.
This protection was extended further in the digital age. In 2022, (Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, 2022), the Delhi High Court granted wide-ranging safeguards to Amitabh Bachchan against the unauthorised use of his name, voice, image, and likeness across physical and online platforms. The Court recognised that modern misuse now includes digital replicas, voice cloning, and virtual exploitation.
Together, these decisions convey a clear message: whether through cinema, commerce, or technology, a person’s identity cannot be freely appropriated without consent.
While constitutional principles and judicial decisions recognise personality as a protected aspect of dignity, the most effective and practical safeguard lies in trademark law. When identity is converted into a registered brand, legal protection becomes clearer, stronger, and easier to enforce. It is at this intersection of personality and trademark that personal reputation transforms into enforceable commercial rights.
PERSONALITY RIGHTS AND TRADEMARK: LEGAL PROTECTION OF COMMERCIAL IDENTITY
In practice, courts do not merely examine whether a person’s identity has been misused. They also consider whether such identity functions as a source identifier in trade. When unauthorised parties misrepresent an association with a well-known personality and derive commercial benefit from such misrepresentation, courts recognise it as actionable deception.
In disputes involving merchandise, endorsements, domain names, social media impersonation, and brand misuse, courts increasingly rely on trademark doctrines to provide effective remedies. Injunctions, damages, and account of profits are more readily available under statutory intellectual property law than under general privacy claims.
Although India does not have a standalone statute on personality rights, their protection is effectively achieved through multiple intellectual property and civil law regimes. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (particularly Sections 2, 14, 27, 29 and 135) enables individuals to safeguard their names, brand identities, and commercial personas by granting exclusive rights over registered marks and preventing unauthorised associations. These provisions transform reputation into enforceable commercial rights.
The Copyright Act, 1957 protects elements closely linked to personality by recognising exclusive rights over original creative works and recorded performances, including voice recordings, audiovisual content, and literary and artistic expressions. It restrains unauthorised reproduction, distribution, adaptation, and commercial use of such material. Performers are granted special statutory rights, enabling them to control the recording, broadcasting, and public communication of their performances. In the digital context, copyright law further restricts the unauthorised circulation, modification, and monetisation of protected content on online platforms. By securing legal control over expressive and performative aspects of personality, the Act plays a crucial role in preserving both economic interests and reputational integrity.
The Information Technology Act, 2000 addresses the growing misuse of identity in digital spaces by penalising online impersonation, identity theft, data misuse, and fraudulent representation. In addition, the common law doctrines of passing off and misappropriation under tort law protect reputation and goodwill against deceptive commercial practices.
Together, these legal frameworks operate in a complementary manner, ensuring that personality rights are not merely abstract constitutional ideals, but enforceable interests recognised and protected within India’s intellectual property and civil justice system.
This integrated framework also enables courts to balance individual dignity with creative freedom and commercial interests. It is within this calibrated legal structure that Indian courts draw a clear distinction between expressive imitation and commercial exploitation. While parody and entertainment fall within the ambit of free speech, systematic monetisation of a celebrity’s identity without consent attracts liability under personality rights, trademark law, and passing off.
PERMISSIBLE MIMICRY AND ILLEGAL EXPLOITATION: DRAWING THE LEGAL LINE
The distinction between lawful imitation and unlawful exploitation becomes particularly relevant in cases involving celebrity mimicry. Indian courts have consistently recognised that not every imitation of a public figure amounts to a violation of personality rights. The legality of such conduct depends upon its context, purpose, and commercial impact.
Imitation used in comedy, satire, or entertainment, without suggesting endorsement or deriving independent commercial benefit, is generally protected as free expression.
However, the legal position changes when imitation crosses into commercial exploitation. When a celebrity’s voice, image, mannerisms, or catch phrases are used for advertisements, merchandise, paid promotions, or monetised digital content without consent, such use amounts to unauthorised exploitation.
The legal action initiated by actor Jackie Shroff in May 2024 before the Delhi High Court, seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights, was directed against the widespread unauthorised commercial exploitation of his name, voice, image, and distinctive expressions across digital platforms and merchandise. The Court’s intervention was aimed at preventing large-scale monetisation of identity rather than restraining artistic or creative performance.
The Indian jurisprudence maintains a calibrated balance. It protects creativity, satire, and entertainment, while simultaneously preventing identity theft and unfair enrichment. The law does not prohibit imitation. It prohibits unauthorised monetisation.
Unauthorised monetisation of personality is, in substance, a form of unjust enrichment, as it involves the extraction of commercial benefit from another’s identity without lawful consent. Indian courts address this inequity through injunctions, damages, and account of profits under personality rights, trademark law, and passing off.
UNJUST ENRICHMENT, PERSONALITY, AND COMMERCIAL FAIRNESS
At the core of personality rights jurisprudence lies a fundamental economic and legal question: who is entitled to profit from a person’s identity?
Reputation, goodwill, and public recognition are not accidental assets. When these are built through sustained effort, creativity, and professional labour, their commercial value cannot be freely appropriated by third parties. The unauthorised commercial exploitation of a celebrity’s personality enables others to derive economic benefit from another’s labour and investment. Such conduct fits squarely within the doctrine of unjust enrichment, which prohibits the retention of benefits obtained without lawful justification.
In cases involving merchandise, endorsements, and digital monetisation, unauthorised exploitation is treated as a distortion of market fairness. Where such misuse is accompanied by deception, impersonation, or fraud, it may also attract criminal liability under the jurisprudence governing criminal misappropriation and related offences such as cheating and identity theft.
This economic dimension of personality rights operates within a broader constitutional and statutory framework. Rooted in the guarantees of dignity, autonomy, and personal liberty under Article 21, these rights are reinforced through trademark law, copyright protection, and allied intellectual property regimes that regulate the commercial use of identity.
Courts, through injunctions, damages, and accounts of profits, seek not merely to restrain misuse, but to restore equilibrium between individual rights and market conduct. These remedies reflect an integrated legal approach that combines constitutional values, intellectual property protection, restitutionary principles, and criminal safeguards.
Viewed in this light, personality rights are not confined to privacy or publicity. Identity, once transformed into commercial goodwill, constitutes a protected legal interest against free-riding on another’s effort and integrity.
Personality rights in India operate within an intricate legal web of constitutional guarantees, intellectual property regimes, restitutionary principles of unjust enrichment, and, where necessary, criminal sanctions for misappropriation.