Deepfakes, Digital Clones, and Personality Rights: The New Battle for Identity

In an era where artificial intelligence can replicate a person's face, voice, expressions and mannerisms  within seconds, the question of who owns an individual's digital identity has become one of the most  pressing legal issues of our time. What once belonged to the realm of science fiction has now become  a daily reality. Deepfakes, AI-generated endorsements, voice cloning and synthetic media have  fundamentally altered the relationship between technology and identity, forcing courts worldwide to  grapple with legal questions that existing intellectual property frameworks were never designed to  answer. 

India is no exception. Over the past year, and particularly during May and June 2026, the Delhi High  Court has emerged as the principal forum addressing the misuse of celebrity identities through  artificial intelligence. Within a matter of months, several prominent public figures have approached  the Court seeking protection against deepfakes, AI-generated content and digital impersonation. The  proceedings involving Naga Chaitanya, Varun Dhawan and Kumar Sanu indicate that Indian courts  are increasingly willing to protect names, likenesses, voices and other personality attributes from  unauthorised digital exploitation. 

These developments may ultimately mark a transition in Indian jurisprudence-from protecting  celebrity publicity rights to protecting digital identity itself. 

While personality rights are not expressly codified under Indian law, courts have long recognised that  a celebrity's identity possesses significant commercial value. The foundations of this doctrine can be  traced to ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises (2003), where the Delhi High  Court acknowledged the commercial significance associated with a celebrity persona. The principle  was further developed in DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House (2010), where the Court  protected singer Daler Mehndi against the unauthorised commercial exploitation of his identity. 

However, those cases arose in an era before generative artificial intelligence. The legal challenge  today is substantially different. AI systems can generate realistic videos depicting individuals  engaging in conduct that never occurred, fabricate endorsements for products never promoted, create  synthetic advertisements and reproduce voices with near-perfect accuracy. The resulting harm  extends beyond commercial misuse and directly implicates privacy, dignity, reputation and personal  autonomy. 

The timing of these disputes is hardly coincidental. The past two years have witnessed an  unprecedented rise in publicly accessible AI-powered image generators, face-swapping applications 

and voice-cloning tools. Technologies that were once confined to specialised research laboratories  are now available to millions of users through consumer applications, dramatically lowering the  barriers to digital impersonation. 

It is against this backdrop that the Delhi High Court's recent interventions assume significance. 

On 29 May 2026, Telugu actor Naga Chaitanya approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection  against the unauthorised use of his personality attributes across digital platforms. The suit was  prompted by concerns relating to AI-generated content, deepfakes and other forms of digital  impersonation. The actor sought protection against the misuse of his name, image, likeness and  identity, particularly in circumstances where technology could be used to create misleading, deceptive  or objectionable content without his consent. 

The significance of the proceedings lies not merely in the relief sought but in the nature of the threat  itself. Unlike traditional passing-off or endorsement disputes, AI-generated content can be replicated,  modified and disseminated instantaneously across multiple platforms. The challenge for courts is no  longer simply preventing misuse but addressing the speed and scale at which such misuse can occur.  Consequently, litigants are increasingly seeking dynamic and platform-wide injunctions capable of  responding to the realities of digital dissemination. 

Barely days later, on 29 May 2026, the Delhi High Court also dealt with a personality rights action  instituted by Bollywood actor Varun Dhawan. The proceedings concerned the unauthorised use of  the actor's identity through fake endorsements, misleading commercial content, unauthorised  merchandise and AI-generated material circulating online. 

In interim directions reported on 1 June 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh granted substantial protection to  the actor by restraining the unauthorised use of his name, image, likeness and other personality  attributes. Significantly, the Court directed the removal of deepfake content and authorised disclosure  measures against entities responsible for creating or disseminating infringing material. The order  demonstrates a growing judicial recognition that digital impersonation is no longer merely a  reputational concern but a form of identity appropriation capable of causing substantial commercial  and personal harm. 

The Varun Dhawan proceedings are particularly important because they illustrate how courts are  adapting traditional principles of intellectual property and publicity rights to the realities of generative  AI. The focus is no longer limited to counterfeit merchandise or misleading advertisements. Rather,  courts are increasingly being called upon to address what may be described as “digital replicas” synthetic versions of real individuals generated by algorithms capable of convincingly mimicking their appearance, expressions and public persona. The challenge becomes even more complex when  the attribute being replicated is not a face but a voice. 

This issue came to the forefront in October 2025 when playback singer Kumar Sanu approached the  Delhi High Court regarding AI-generated content allegedly impersonating his distinctive voice and  persona. The Court directed the removal of content that unlawfully exploited the singer's identity and  recognised the growing risks posed by artificial intelligence systems capable of reproducing unique  vocal characteristics. 

The Kumar Sanu matter represents an important evolution in personality rights jurisprudence.  Traditionally, legal protection focused primarily on names, photographs and visual likenesses. Voice  cloning technology now compels courts to confront a more difficult question: whether an individual's  voice, independently of their visual identity, constitutes a protectable aspect of personality. 

In practical terms, the answer increasingly appears to be yes. For performers, singers, broadcasters,  podcasters and content creators, a voice is often their most valuable commercial asset. The  unauthorised replication of that voice through artificial intelligence can mislead audiences, dilute  commercial value and undermine an individual's control over their public persona. 

These recent proceedings do not exist in isolation. They form part of a broader judicial trend visible  across the last two years. The Delhi High Court has previously granted protection to Amitabh  Bachchan, Jackie Shroff, Bhuvan Bam and other public figures whose identities were being  commercially exploited without consent. What distinguishes the most recent cases, however, is the  central role played by artificial intelligence. The dispute is no longer confined to celebrity  endorsements or unauthorised merchandise; it increasingly concerns the creation of entirely synthetic  identities capable of blurring the distinction between reality and fabrication. 

The legal implications extend far beyond the entertainment industry. 

Until recently, personality rights disputes were primarily associated with celebrities. Today, advances  in generative AI have made digital impersonation accessible on an unprecedented scale. Influencers,  journalists, lawyers, educators, corporate executives and ordinary individuals can all become targets  of synthetic media. A person's image can be manipulated, their voice cloned and their identity  reproduced without any specialised technical expertise. 

Consequently, the emerging jurisprudence sits at the intersection of intellectual property law, privacy  rights and constitutional protections. The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Justice K.S.  Puttaswamy v. Union of India recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the  Constitution. Increasingly, personality rights litigation demonstrates how that constitutional 

guarantee is being applied within a technologically transformed environment. The protection of  identity is no longer merely a commercial concern; it has become a question of dignity, autonomy  and informational self-determination. 

Importantly, India is not confronting this challenge alone. Similar concerns surrounding deepfakes,  synthetic media and AI-generated identity misuse have triggered regulatory and judicial responses  across several jurisdictions, including the United States and the European Union. The growing  convergence of these concerns demonstrates that digital identity protection is rapidly emerging as a  global legal issue. 

Yet significant regulatory gaps remain. India currently lacks a dedicated statutory framework  governing deepfakes, synthetic media or personality rights. Courts have therefore been compelled to  rely upon a combination of constitutional principles, passing-off doctrines, equitable relief and  privacy jurisprudence. While these tools have proven remarkably adaptable, they were not  specifically designed to address the challenges posed by AI-generated identity replication. 

As artificial intelligence continues to evolve, legislative intervention may become inevitable.  Questions concerning intermediary obligations, digital replicas, AI-generated endorsements, voice  cloning and online enforcement mechanisms will require clearer regulatory standards than judicial  orders alone can provide. 

For now, however, the Delhi High Court's recent decisions send an unmistakable message.  Technological innovation cannot become a licence for identity appropriation. Whether through a  fabricated video, a cloned voice or an AI-generated endorsement, the unauthorised exploitation of an  individual's persona will increasingly attract judicial scrutiny. 

If 2025 marked the arrival of deepfakes as a legal concern, 2026 may well be remembered as the year  Indian courts began constructing a coherent framework for the protection of digital identity. The legal  question before Indian courts is no longer whether a celebrity owns their reputation; it is whether an  individual can retain control over their digital self. The Delhi High Court's recent interventions  suggest that the answer, at least for now, is increasingly in the affirmative.