In an era where the lines between public interest, commercial exploitation, and individual privacy are increasingly blurred by artificial intelligence and social media, the Delhi High Court has emerged as a central arbiter. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani is currently presiding over a critical series of lawsuits, including those filed by actors Janhvi Kapoor, Vivek Oberoi, and Aaradhya Bachchan, which seek to define the legal boundaries of "personality rights."
The proceedings have sparked a profound judicial inquiry into whether the law protecting one’s identity can be weaponized to shield public figures from legitimate scrutiny or whether it serves as a necessary bulwark against the digital misappropriation of human likeness.
The Core Conflict: Wrongdoing vs. Privacy
The judicial discourse reached a fever pitch on October 9, when Justice Bhambhani issued a stern observation regarding the potential misuse of legal protections. "Personality rights are being misused to cover up wrongdoing. There is no confidentiality about wrongdoing. There is no privacy about wrongdoing," the judge remarked.
This observation was made during arguments presented by Asav Rajan, counsel for Janhvi Kapoor. The crux of the debate centers on whether the protections afforded to a person’s name, likeness, and identity—historically reserved for commercial branding—should extend to shielding celebrities from the consequences of their public actions or private scandals.
Justice Bhambhani posed a rhetorical challenge that resonates far beyond the courtroom: "Can a celebrity or anybody with a personality right not fall from grace? And if so, the fans should know." Using the example of golfer Tiger Woods, the judge questioned the extent to which public figures can claim privacy when their actions involve matters of significant public interest. He posited that a person involved in a massive financial fraud, such as a Rs 5,000 crore bank scam, should not be permitted to use personality rights as a legal shield to prevent the public from learning about their infamy.
Chronology of the Proceedings
The Delhi High Court’s current engagement with the scope of personality rights follows an exhaustive process involving the appointment of two amici curiae—independent lawyers appointed to advise the court on complex legal matters. These experts concluded their arguments earlier this week, setting the stage for the specific claims brought by the actors.
- Initial Hearings: The court began evaluating the intersection of AI, social media fan pages, and celebrity rights, recognizing that existing legal frameworks are ill-equipped for the digital age.
- October 9: Justice Bhambhani challenged the plaintiffs to define the limits of "privacy" when it clashes with the public’s right to information.
- The Path Forward: The hearings are set to continue on October 12, with the court expected to synthesize arguments on where the "commercial" use of an image ends and "news reporting" begins.
The Argument for Universal Personality Rights
A central pillar of the plaintiffs’ argument, articulated by counsel Asav Rajan, is that personality rights are not an exclusive club for the rich and famous. Rajan argued that legal precedents consistently use the terms "individual" and "person," rather than "celebrity."
"Fame affects only the quantum of commercial harm, not the existence of the right," Rajan stated. This legal philosophy suggests that while a Bollywood star might suffer greater financial damage from the unauthorized use of their image than a private citizen, the fundamental right to control one’s own identity remains universal.
When pressed by Justice Bhambhani on whether a notorious criminal could theoretically claim these rights to suppress reports of their crimes, Rajan offered a nuanced distinction. While a criminal possesses a "personality," the courts would likely decline to grant relief because a reputation built on criminal activity does not constitute the "goodwill" that the law is designed to protect.
The Digital Frontier: AI, Fan Pages, and Consent
One of the most pressing aspects of the litigation involves the proliferation of AI-generated content and the existence of unauthorized fan pages. The counsel for Kapoor emphasized that "consent is very sphere-specific." Posting a photograph on a public social media platform does not grant the public a license to repurpose that image for merchandise, AI-morphed deepfakes, or commercial gain.
The "Thicker Skin" Doctrine
Justice Bhambhani suggested that public figures must develop "a thicker skin." He noted that the nature of fame necessitates a lower threshold for privacy, particularly when a celebrity’s private conversations are overheard or their movements are observed in public spaces. Unlike an ordinary citizen, whose private life is rarely a subject of national discourse, the judge noted that "everybody’s interested" in what a star says or does, making absolute privacy an impossible standard for the famous.
Fan Pages and Fair Dealing
Regarding the hundreds of fan-run accounts that dominate social media, Rajan argued that these pages do not have a blanket right to operate. While "fair dealing"—the copyright principle that allows for limited, transformative use—may protect some fan content, it is not a shield for everything.
Rajan proposed that for a fan page to be legally compliant, it must:
- Maintain a Lauding Intent: The content should be celebratory rather than malicious.
- Display Disclaimers: It must clearly state that it is not the official page of the celebrity.
- Avoid Commercialization: It should not be used to sell products or services using the celebrity’s face.
- Prohibit Obscenity: It must never host AI-generated, morphed, or non-consensual sexual content.
Implications for Privacy Law
The outcome of these hearings will likely set a landmark precedent for how Indian courts treat the "Right to Publicity" and the "Right to Privacy" in the age of generative AI.
Defining the Line: News vs. Privacy
The court is currently struggling to draw a clear line between legitimate news reporting and the invasive capture of private lives. Justice Bhambhani contrasted a celebrity being filmed doing something public (such as holding a book upside down at a launch) with the intrusive photography of individuals at private dinners.
Rajan acknowledged this distinction, conceding that while a candid photo at a restaurant might technically fall under public reporting, adding speculative claims about the subject’s health, relationships, or personal life crosses the threshold into actionable privacy violations.
The AI Challenge
Perhaps the most significant legal hurdle involves non-consensual, AI-generated sexual content. Rajan argued that the current legal standard—the "obscenity test" established in the Aveek Sarkar case, which relies on community standards—is insufficient for victims of deepfakes. He urged the court to adopt a more stringent standard where such content is removed immediately, regardless of whether it meets the traditional legal definition of "obscenity."
Conclusion: A Delicate Balance
The Delhi High Court’s ongoing deliberations represent a critical junction in Indian jurisprudence. As the court weighs the "practical evidentiary advantage" that celebrities hold in proving commercial harm against the public’s right to know, the final verdict will have far-reaching consequences.
The message from the bench is clear: the law will continue to protect individuals from the malicious and commercial misuse of their identity, but it will not serve as a tool for the powerful to sanitize their public records or escape the consequences of their actions. As Justice Bhambhani’s inquiry continues, the legal system is effectively drafting the "rulebook" for identity in the digital age—a task that requires balancing the humanity of the individual with the voracious appetite of the public sphere.
