Ms. Manshi Joshi, Student of Army Institute of Law, Mohali
The concept of personality rights has come into prominence at a time when personal data have turned into commercialized merchandise. The rights are supposed to safeguard the personal attributes of a person from unauthorized use and exploitation, which poses significant challenges in countries like India. Therefore, this balance between personal privacy and public interest gives rise to many complex legal questions. The position of personality rights in Indian courts has evolved with the help of several landmark cases involving celebrities such as Amitabh Bachchan, Shahrukh Khan, and Anil Kapoor—and their impact on matters of privacy and public interest.
Understanding the Personality Rights
Personality Rights protect an individual’s autonomy by preventing unauthorized exploitation. While the Indian legal framework does not have a singular codified law on personality rights, judicial interpretations under the constitutional and intellectual property law have shaped their application. Earlier, personality rights and moral rights were not expressly recognized by the Indian courts,[1] but over time, jurisprudence has expanded to provide them with legal standing.[2]
The Right to Privacy safeguards individuals from unwarranted interference with their private lives, a principle reinforced by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy,[3]which recognized privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Right to Publicity grants individuals control over the commercial use of their NIL (name, image, or likeness), preventing unauthorized endorsements. This was recognized in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers,[4] where the Delhi High Court upheld an individual’s right to prevent commercial misuse of their identity.
The Right to Integrity protects against misrepresentation or exploitation that could damage one’s reputation. In cases involving celebrities, courts have intervened to prevent defamatory portrayals, ensuring that their image is not distorted without their consent.
As India’s digital landscape expands, these rights will continue to be refined through legislative and judicial developments, balancing individual interests with the larger public domain.
Legal Framework in India: Navigating Personality Rights
Indian legal framework lacks a singular codified law pertaining to personality rights, yet its recognition emerges from a blend of constitutional provisions, intellectual property statutes, and defamation laws. As media and digital platforms expand, courts have increasingly acknowledged the significance of safeguarding an individual’s identity, privacy, and reputation. India’s recognition of personality rights aligns with the global trends, including publicity rights in the U.S. and EU data protection laws.
- Constitutional Right to Privacy: The right to privacy has been firmly established as a fundamental right under Article 21[5] of the Constitution of India. The landmark judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy,[6] reaffirmed this position, ensuring protection against unauthorized exploitation of personal identity. This ruling laid the foundation for individuals, especially public figures, to assert their personality rights against intrusive media exposure and commercial misuse.[7]
- Intellectual Property Laws: While India’s IP laws do not explicitly protect personality rights, but the aspects of trademarks[8] and copyrights law[9]– provide partial protection. Under the Trademarks Act, 1999[10] celebrities can register their names, signature, or images as trademarks, granting them some control over unauthorized commercial usage. Section 38 of the Copyright Act, 1957[11]protects performer’s rights, preventing unauthorized reproduction or misrepresentation of their performances. However, these laws still fail to grant absolute personality rights,[12] leaving enforcement gaps.
- Defamation Laws: The protection of reputation falls under section 356 of the BNS[13] which criminalizes defamatory statements that harm an individual’s image. Civil remedies under tort law also allow individuals to seek damages for false and injurious portrayals. Despite these legal provisions, the absence of a dedicated statute creates ambiguity, necessitating further legislative and judicial developments.
Judicial Recognition of Celebrity Rights in India
Over the years, Indian courts have played a crucial role in shaping the legal framework surrounding personality rights, particularly concerning celebrities. Various landmark cases have reinforced the constitutional validity of personality rights,[14] balancing individual rights with public interest and commercial exploitation. These judicial precedents have helped define the scope of protection afforded to famous personalities, ensuring their name, image, and likeness are safeguarded against unauthorized use. The following cases illustrate the evolving jurisprudence in this domain:
Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors.[15]– The Delhi High Court issued an ex parte ad interim injunction order, restraining the world at large from exploiting the well-known actor Amitabh Bachchan’s name, image, voice or any of his attributes without his consent or permission.[16]The point to be noticed in this case was that celebrities can control their image and can even enforce it in the court of law.
Anil Kapoor v. Indian Premier League[17]– Anil Kapoor complained against the IPL for using his persona in promotional events without his consent.The Court decided in Kapoor’s favour and held that even for promotional purposes, proper consent is required for using a celebrity’s persona. What this judgment laid down was the requirement of respect for personality rights over all commercial and advertisement activities.
Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P & Co. & Anr[18]– Renowned Indian cricketer Gautam Gambhir initiated legal action against a restaurant for using the tagline “by Gautam Gambhir” without his permission. He contended that the unauthorized use of his name misled the public into believing that he was affiliated with or had endorsed the establishment. The Court stated that ‘Celebrity status of the plaintiff is not disputed. However, there is no material on record to infer if any time in running the said restaurants with the tagline ‘by Gautam Gambhir’, the defendant ever represented to the public at large in any manner that the said restaurants were owned by the plaintiff or he was associated with them in any manner.’ It emphasizes the need of tangible evidence of public misunderstanding and misrepresentation, as well as the need for a clear connection between the unauthorized use of a celebrity’s name and actual consumer deception or commercial harm. The court highlighted that mere use of a common name, without explicit misrepresentation or intent to deceive, may not be sufficient to establish a violation of personality rights. However, the court did not rule out the possibility of a violation in cases where the name directly misleads consumers.
Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors[19]– Multiple defendants infringed on the plaintiff’s registered trademarks and name ‘JACKIE SHROFF’ by (i) selling printed merchandise on e-stores, (ii) creating derogatory YouTube videos, (iii) opening a restaurant named ‘Bhidu Shawarma & Restaurant’, and (iv) posting links to sell merchandise and (v) certain pornographic content under the name “Jackie Shroff” without prior consent. Jackie Shroff filed a lawsuit to safeguard his reputation and publicity rights from improper commercial use of his name, picture, voice, and other distinguishing qualities.
Balancing of Privacy with Public Interest
In a media-driven society, the challenge of balancing an individual’s right to privacy with the public’s right to information is increasingly complex. While celebrities are public figures, their personal lives are not entirely open to scrutiny or commercial exploitation. Courts and lawmakers must ensure that privacy rights are not sacrificed in the name of public curiosity or commercial gain.
To determine this balance the following factors, play a crucial role:
- Public Interest v. Private Interest
The mere fact that a person is a public figure does not strip them of their privacy rights. While public interest may justify the reporting of actions on official or professional capacities, it does not extend to excessive intrusion into their private affairs. The courts should evaluate whether the disclosure serves a legitimate public function or merely satisfies public curiosity at the cost of individual dignity.
- Consent and Permission
For any commercial use of a celebrity’s name, image or likeness (NIL), by any person shall be done with explicit authorization. Unauthorized usage for advertising, merchandising, or endorsements can amount to a violation of personality rights and shall be punishable under intellectual property and common law principles. The courts must assess whether prior consent was obtained and, if not, whether the usage results in unjust enrichment at the cost of the individuals.
- Commercial Exploitation:
A significant aspect of personality rights is protecting individuals from unjust commercial gain by third parties. The courts shall ensure that where a celebrity’s identity is used in branding, advertising or merchandising without consent, then adequate compensation should be granted. Recognizing the financial value of celebrity endorsements, legal safeguards are necessary to prevent unauthorized misappropriation.
- Transformative Use and Fair Comment
In certain cases, public interest might justify the use of a celebrity’s persona, such as in satire, parody, artistic works, and journalistic reporting, Courts must analyse whether the usage adds substantial new expression, opinion, or artistic value rather than merely capitalizing on a celebrity’s reputation. However, the defense of parody does not always absolve liability, as seen in People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney[20], where a parody website using the plaintiff’s trademark was found to constitute infringement rather than fair use. A clear distinction is thus maintained between fair commentary and exploitative misrepresentation.[21]
- Judicial Balancing Approach
To ensure fairness, courts must follow a case-by-case analysis, weighing freedom of expression, commercial interest, and personal privacy. This act of balancing shall be considered with respect to evolving media trends, technological developments, and the increasing risk of digital exploitation. Courts often refer to constitutional protections, intellectual property laws, and international legal standards to reach a just and equitable decision.
Conclusion
In India, the personality rights have evolved to gradually recognize the act of seeing overall individual privacy, while at the same moment, an individual’s liking follows a commercial approach and public interest. Thus, the legal framework for the protection of privacy and personality rights continues to evolve, with the courts increasingly emphasizing upon the necessity of obtaining consent and authorization from a celebrity before using their persona. However, notable cases involving luminaries like Amitabh Bachchan, Shahrukh Khan, Anil Kapoor, Rekha, and Hrithik Roshan have continued to put this tightrope walk under the scanner even in the recent past. Therefore, at times when the world is pacing up, such respect and protection shown towards personality rights would go a long way in ensuring that the concept of fairness is not fully compromised in these high mediated times. As digital media and commercial endorsements continue to evolve, India must develop a more robust legal framework to explicitly codify personality rights, ensuring a balance between privacy, commercial interests, and freedom of expression.
Refrences :
[1] Manisha Koirala v. Shashilal Nair, 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 827.
[2] Sholay Media and Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Parag Sanghavi, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11644.
[3] K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[4] Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382.
[5] Constitution of India, art 21.
[6] K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1.
[7] Sonu Nigam v. Amrik Singh, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 5133.
[8] Digital Collectibles (P) Ltd. v. Galactus Funware Technology (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2306.
[9] Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3146.
[10] Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Act No. 47 of 1999].
[11] The Copyright Act, 1957 [Act No. 14 of 1957].
[12] Digital Collectibles (P) Ltd. v. Galactus Funware Technology (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2306.
[13] The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [Act No. 45 of 2023].
[14] Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2445.
[15] (2022) 6 HCC (Del) 641.
[16] Srishti Singhania and others,‘Understanding Indian Laws Protecting Personality Rights,’ https://bwlegalworld.com/article/understanding-indian-laws-protecting-personality-rights-522552 accessed 29 August 2024.
[17] CS (COMM) 652 of 2023.
[18] 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12167; CS(COMM) 395/2017.
[19] 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12167; CS(COMM) 389/2024.
[20] 263 F 3d 359, No. 00-1918 (4th Cir 2001).
[21] ‘Social Media and IPR Issues,’ (2019) 9 GJLDP (April) 119.
