Author: Tejaswani Jain

INTRODUCTION: 

The continuous paradigm shift in the field of Science and technology has transformed the world in many ways. The augmentation of Artificial Intelligence has created a deep impact upon all the spheres of the global economy and society. This transition to an era of digitalisation has brought with it significant legal challenges also.  Data protection and individuals privacy have become an important concern especially with the proliferation in digital misuse and artificial intelligence. India courts have also been posed with such challenges from time to time. Recently, Kamal Hasaan- a Veteran Indian Actor, Director, and Rajya Sabha MP filed a case for protection of his personality rights before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The matter postulates significant questions encompassing image rights, commercial exploitation and digital misuse in a society and also elucidates the balance between individual dignity and freedom of expression in a digital age. 

On January 12, 2026, the Madras High Court granted interim protection to Haasan, issuing a “John Doe” injunction to restrain unauthorized use of his name, photograph, likeness, and other identifying traits for commercial exploitation without his consent. 

WHY THE CASE WAS FILED?

Kamal Haasan filed a civil suit in the Madras High Court against various parties, including a Chennai-based company — Neeye Vidai — and a class of unnamed or unidentified individuals (referred to in law as “John Doe” defendants). The petition alleged that:

• Merchandisers were selling T-shirts, shirts, and other products bearing Haasan’s name, photos, iconic screen titles such as “Ulaganayagan,” and famous film dialogues without his authorization.
  
• Several websites and digital platforms were circulating morphed images and AI-generated deepfakes of Haasan, some allegedly in inappropriate or sexually explicit contexts, created and disseminated for profit.
  
• These unauthorized acts risked misleading the public into believing these products or content had the actor’s endorsement, thereby tarnishing his reputation and commercial goodwill

In his pleadings, Haasan emphasized his long and distinguished career — spanning more than six decades and over 250 films in multiple Indian languages — and the enormous commercial and cultural value of his persona and brand. He sought a permanent injunction against unauthorized use of his personality for profit.

WHAT ARE PERSONALITY RIGHTS?

Personality rights are the legal rights of an individual to exercise control over the commercial use of their identity. It includes under its gambit – name, voice, signature, images or any other feature easily identified by the public are markers of a celebrity’s personality.These also include a pose or a mannerism or any aspect of their personality. For example,Shahrukh Khan’s famous pose with stretched arms. Basically, personality rights is an umbrella including under it anything which reminds the public of a particular celebrity or any trait which could be attributed to a particular person. For eg, the voice of Amitabh Bachchan. It is considered as a part of Intellectual property and the main aim behind their protection is to give exclusive control over these rights to the owner or creator of these distinct features. Personality rights are a critical concern for both celebrities and common people whose identities can be exploited for financial gain or deceit, since the spread of social media, artificial intelligence, and deepfake technologies has increased the possibility of exploitation.  Personality rights typically encompass two main types:

• Right of Publicity: This right allows individuals to prevent others from using their name, image, or likeness for commercial purposes without permission.
• Right to Privacy: This right protects individuals from having their personality represented publicly without consent

LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR PERSONALITY RIGHTS IN INDIA:

Personality rights have not been granted any statutory recognition yet but the Courts have ,from time to time, recognised them as a part of the fundamental rights granted under the Constitution of India. These rights are traced to fall under the gambit of right to privacy granted under Article 21 of the Constitution. Even the common law remedy of Passing off can be availed in case of violation of these rights. 

In Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie Shroff vs The Peppy Store & Ors. CS(COMM) 389/2024 ,the Court acknowledged that a celebrity’s persona consists of their name, voice, likeness, nicknames, and distinctive phrases— all of which are protected by law. Unauthorised usage is equivalent to passing off and violating someone’s right to privacy.

While they are not expressly codified, they are still recognised to be a basis of a legal action.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS GOVERNING THE RIGHTS:

1. DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors. (CS(OS) 893/2002) – One of the first court recognitions of personality rights in India was this landmark judgement. The Court recognised that a celebrity’s persona, which includes their voice, image, and resemblance, has economic worth and should be shielded from infringement.
2.  Amitabh Bachchan vs Rajat Nagi & Ors  CS(COMM) 819/2022 – This case established a precedent for safeguarding celebrities’ personal and professional identities against digital and commercial piracy, thereby reinforcing India’s legal protection of personality rights. 

THE COURT’S RULING: INTERIM PROTECTION AND ITS SCOPE –

1. John Doe Order:
   On January 12, 2026, Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy of the Madras High Court granted interim relief in Haasan’s favor:

• The court found a strong prima facie case that the actor’s name, image, and likeness were being used commercially without consent.
  
• It restrained Neeye Vidai and unidentified parties from selling merchandise or creating and disseminating unauthorized visual content using Haasan’s details until the next hearing.
• The order was structured as a “John Doe” injunction, meaning it applies to unknown or unidentifiable defendants — crucial in digital-era cases where perpetrators are often anonymous.
• To ensure wide awareness, Haasan was directed to publish public notices about the order in both English and Tamil newspapers so that unnamed entities can be informed of their obligations.

2. Balancing fundamental right under Article 19 with personality rights:
   Justice Ramamoorthy observed that while commercial exploitation could not be allowed without consent, the right to freedom of expression under the Constitution must co-exist with personality rights. However, the court also clarified that the order would not restrain permissible forms of free expression, such as: Caricature, satire and other lawful artistic or critical commentary.

CONCLUSION:

As the digital media continues to evolve, there is also a need for evolution of legal frameworks governing how personalities are represented, profited from, and protected. Kamal Haasan’s case is not just about one individual but it, in fact,  reflects a broader movement towards strengthening personal rights in the digital era in India. Personality rights have emerged as an important area of legal discourse, particularly in the context of Deepfakes and Artificial Intelligence where images can be easily manipulated or morphed and privacy of the individual, whether it be a celebrity or a common man, is constantly at stake.