Introduction:

The case of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com & Ors. came before the Delhi High Court, where Justice Tejas Karia addressed the crucial issue of personality rights in the age of digital technology and artificial intelligence. The petitioner, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, one of India’s most celebrated film personalities and international brand ambassadors, sought judicial protection against unauthorized use of her personal attributes including her name, likeness, images, and persona. She argued that various entities, including unknown digital operators, were exploiting her identity through technological tools such as Artificial Intelligence, Generative AI, Deepfakes, and Face Morphing, for commercial and personal gains without her consent. This misuse, she contended, not only caused financial loss but also harmed her dignity, goodwill, and reputation. The matter brought before the court raised significant questions of law concerning the balance between digital freedom, commercial exploitation, and the fundamental right to privacy and dignity under the Indian Constitution.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, represented by her legal team, argued that personality rights encompass an individual’s right to control the use of their personal attributes such as name, image, likeness, voice, and persona. These rights, she emphasized, are an extension of the fundamental right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection of dignity and autonomy. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan contended that unauthorized exploitation of her identity had two dimensions: first, it allowed third parties to commercially exploit her goodwill and reputation without authorization, thereby depriving her of rightful economic benefits; and second, it directly violated her right to privacy and dignity by associating her persona with unauthorized endorsements or messages that could mislead the public. She further argued that she had attained a global reputation as a cultural icon, brand ambassador, and public figure, which made her particularly vulnerable to misuse. The use of artificial intelligence and digital manipulation technologies like deepfakes, the petitioner stated, had created an unprecedented threat to her image by enabling unknown actors to produce content that looked authentic but was in fact fabricated. The petitioner highlighted instances where unauthorized websites and digital operators were creating confusion among the public, suggesting false endorsements, or monetizing her persona through counterfeit goods and advertisements. She insisted that such actions caused irreparable harm not only financially but also to her dignity, reputation, and trust she enjoyed among the public and brands she represented. The petitioner, therefore, sought an immediate injunction restraining the defendants, including “John Doe” parties whose identities were unknown, from misusing her personal attributes in any manner across platforms and formats, whether physical or digital, and specifically through advanced AI-based technologies. She also sought directions to intermediaries like Google and government authorities like the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to take proactive steps in removing and blocking offending URLs and preventing further misuse.

Arguments of the Respondents:

The named defendants and the “John Doe” entities did not appear before the court at this stage, and the matter was considered ex parte. However, in a general sense, such respondents in similar cases usually argue on grounds of free speech, public domain usage, or the claim that no substantial damage has been caused to the reputation of the petitioner. They may also contend that once content is uploaded online, intermediaries cannot be held directly responsible for all user-generated content under the safe harbor protections of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Another likely argument would be that the petitioner, being a public figure, is subject to greater scrutiny and usage of her likeness for commentary, parody, or fan engagement, which they may claim falls within legitimate expression. Nevertheless, in the absence of a substantive rebuttal in this particular case, the court proceeded to evaluate the petition on the basis of the petitioner’s prima facie claims and the larger constitutional principles.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Tejas Karia of the Delhi High Court delivered a detailed order recognizing the significance of personality rights in the digital era. The court first affirmed the legal position that personality rights entail the right to control and protect the exploitation of one’s image, name, likeness, and other personal attributes, including the commercial gains derived from them. These rights, the court observed, are closely tied to an individual’s autonomy to permit or deny exploitation of their identity. The court further held that unauthorized exploitation of such attributes results in dual harm: first, a violation of the commercial interest of the individual, depriving them of legitimate economic benefits; and second, an infringement of the right to privacy, which undermines the right to live with dignity under Article 21. Justice Karia noted that Aishwarya Rai Bachchan had acquired immense goodwill and reputation as a global icon and brand ambassador, and that unauthorized use of her persona could not only cause confusion among the public regarding false endorsements but also dilute her reputation and goodwill. The court emphasized that misuse through AI tools like deepfakes, morphing, or generative AI created even greater risks of deception and harm to reputation in today’s digital environment.

Consequently, the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of the petitioner, restraining all defendants, including unknown “John Doe” parties, from exploiting or misappropriating the actress’s name, images, likeness, acronym “ARB,” or any other attributes of her persona for commercial or personal gain without her authorization. The injunction extended to all technologies, including Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Deepfakes, and Face Morphing, and covered all mediums and formats, digital or otherwise.

The court also issued specific directions to intermediaries and authorities to ensure enforcement of its order. Google LLC was directed to take down identified URLs within 72 hours and to file in a sealed cover the subscriber information of the operators or sellers misusing the petitioner’s persona. MeitY was directed to issue necessary blocking and disabling orders for the offending URLs within seven days. Justice Karia stressed that courts cannot turn a blind eye in cases of such unauthorized exploitation and must provide relief to aggrieved parties to avert harm.

In conclusion, the court recognized the petitioner’s status as a global cultural icon and emphasized that misuse of her identity without consent not only damages her economic interests but also undermines her dignity and the trust reposed in her by the public and brands. The ruling thus set a significant precedent for protecting personality rights in the age of AI and digital technologies, highlighting the judiciary’s proactive role in balancing privacy, dignity, and commercial rights with the evolving challenges of cyberspace.