Court Recognizes Personality and Publicity Rights as Fundamental Rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21, Directs Removal of Infringing Content and Disclosure of User Information by Digital Platforms
In a landmark interim order dated September 3, 2026, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, granted significant relief to renowned actress and public figure Shruti Haasan, protecting her personality rights and publicity rights against unauthorized use, including AI-generated deepfake videos, manipulated photographs, and commercial exploitation of her persona.
Shruti Haasan approached the Court through an interim application in a commercial intellectual property suit against multiple defendants, including various e-commerce platforms, AI chatbot operators, social media platforms such as YouTube (Google LLC), Instagram and Facebook (Meta Platforms Inc.), X Corp. (formerly Twitter), Pinterest Europe Ltd., and unknown entities, alleging rampant misuse of her name, image, voice, and other distinctive personality attributes.
The Court held that the unauthorized creation and dissemination of AI-generated deepfake videos, chatbot personas, morphed photographs, memes, and merchandise bearing the Plaintiff's likeness not only violate her moral rights under Sections 38, 38A, and 38B of the Copyright Act, 1957 but also infringe her fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and 21 (right to life and personal liberty including privacy and dignity) of the Constitution of India. The judgment emphasized that the right to life encompasses the right to live with dignity, which is adversely affected by the unauthorized exploitation of personality rights.
The Plaintiff substantiated her case by presenting extensive evidence of infringing content hosted and circulated across various digital platforms. This includes unauthorized merchandise sold on e-commerce websites like Flipkart, AI chatbots impersonating her, and sexualized, defamatory deepfake videos and photographs on social media platforms, which have caused and continue to cause irreparable harm to her reputation, goodwill, and commercial interests.
The Court underscored the due diligence obligations of intermediaries under Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, directing them to take immediate steps to remove or disable access to infringing content upon notification. The intermediaries were also ordered to furnish basic subscriber and seller information relating to the infringing content to the Plaintiff to enable further legal action.
The interim relief granted restrains Defendants 1 to 10 and 18 (including unknown persons) from using or exploiting any aspect of Shruti Haasan's persona - name, voice, image, likeness, signature, performance style, or any other distinctive attributes - without her consent. The defendants are also barred from passing off their products or services as endorsed by or associated with the Plaintiff.
The Court granted liberty to the Defendants to raise objections if notified content includes genuine photographs or non-infringing material and allowed them to approach the Court for further directions, recognizing the intermediaries' obligation to exercise due diligence.
This order follows the precedent set in a similar case involving another celebrity, Preity G. Zinta vs. Google LLC, decided by the same Court in July 2026, reinforcing the judiciary's proactive stance against unauthorized digital exploitation of celebrity personas in the age of AI.
The case is scheduled for further hearing on December 3, 2026, with the ad-interim relief continuing until then.
Bottom Line:
Personality Rights and Publicity Rights - Protection against unauthorized use of celebrity's persona - Recognized as a facet of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and moral rights under Copyright Act, 1957.
Statutory provision(s):
Articles 19(1)(a), 21 of the Constitution of India; Sections 38, 38A, 38B of the Copyright Act, 1957; Rule 3 of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
Shruti Haasan v. Mahalaxmi Arts and Craft Works, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2972670
