INTRODUCTION
In the case of Kriti Sanon vs. BBE Marketing Inc. & Ors. on 29th October 2026, the High Court of Delhi held that personality rights are not a cause of action and that the use of the personality of an individual is not, by itself, illegal. Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav issued interim protection to the actor Kriti Sanon from the alleged misappropriation of her name, image, likeness and voice using impersonation, artificial intelligence (AI) and deepfakes. The court made it clear that each legal remedy needs to be separately analysed, and the injunctive relief needs to specify the illegal content specifically.
BACKGROUND
Kriti Sanon filed a case in the Delhi High Court complaining about individuals and various websites misusing her identity without permission. These acts include making bookings under her name, using fake social media profiles, circulating altered and AI-generated pictures of her, selling merchandise, developing AI chatbots and voice profiles, as well as publishing sexually explicit deepfake material of her.
According to the claimant, such misuse is likely to affect her reputation and dignity. She wants injunction orders issued against the people involved and the removal of the objectionable content from various online platforms. She says she tried to contact the online intermediaries on 27 August 2026. But some didn’t respond in the right way and she was left with no choice but to go to court.
In this case, the Court considered the principles concerning personality rights in terms of law and also referred to previous decisions like R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, and Digital Collectables Pte. Ltd. v. Galactus Funware Technology Pvt. Ltd. It has been noted by the Court that there is no statutory right known as “Personality Rights” in India. There could be various causes of action.
KEY POINTS
- Personality rights encompass a variety of individual legal causes of action, rather than being an individual cause of action.
- The right of publicity protects against the economic exploitation of one’s personality and can be licensed, while privacy, dignity, and reputation are personal rights.
- Such rights are accessible to all individuals, and not merely celebrities.
- Use of one’s name or likeness by itself does not constitute infringement: context, intent, and the relevant rights have to be taken into account.
- The Court ordered the removal/blocking of specific infringing material and enjoined the impersonation, the production of sexually explicit deepfakes, and other forms of misuse.
- News reporting, criticism, commentary, satire, parody, and legitimate fan activities were exempted from the injunction.
ANALYSIS
The Court made clear the difference between the right of publicity and the right to privacy. While the former is concerned with the economic value of one’s persona, the latter is about personal interests. Passing off requires false representation, creating an impression of endorsement or association. Each remedy would require separate elements to be satisfied, as well as defences and remedies. Thus, the plaintiff could not raise multiple claims as personality rights claims and seek a general injunction.
The Court also referred to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 which provides immunity to the intermediary against liability for third party information. This was explained in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, wherein the court elucidated the concept of “actual knowledge” with regard to the removal of unlawful information. There are few other provisions under Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
The court granted limited protection to specific categories of content while still maintaining freedom of expression. The court stated that its comments were preliminary and the issues would be settled once the contesting parties had been heard.
CONCLUSION
The judgment emphasises the need to ensure that there is a balance between the rights of identity protection and freedom of speech and expression. Courts need to determine the exact right that has been breached as opposed to treating every identity issue as a single claim. This ruling comes at a time when the issue of identity is being compromised through AI-created deepfakes.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: DEBARATI CHATTERJEE
