Personality rights litigation brought by Kriti Sanon reached the Delhi High Court on Friday, where judges indicated that the growing volume of comparable filings warranted a thorough review of the legal framework underpinning such claims.
During the hearing, advocate Pravin Anand — representing Sanon before the court's Intellectual Property Division — received a direction from Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav to put together a thorough dossier covering case law and research on personality rights, encompassing both the scope of protection those rights carry and the extent of the IPD's authority to adjudicate such matters. Noting that such disputes land before the bench with some regularity, the judge indicated that the underlying legal questions called for a wider inquiry than the immediate case alone could provide.
Sanon's legal team was directed by the bench to clarify what personality rights actually cover — the personal attributes of an individual that law might protect — and whether the IPD holds jurisdiction over disputes of that nature. Arguing before the court, Anand put forward the position that personality rights cover a range of personal attributes, among them an individual's name, voice, facial appearance, images, photographs, and recorded video. Trading on a person's likeness or identity without that individual's knowledge or permission was flagged as another concern surfacing in cases of this kind.
Justice Kaurav requested that pertinent case law and supporting research materials be laid before the bench. The bench directed parties to furnish their submissions and analysis on personality rights, noting that a broad ruling would be considered once the available material had been reviewed.
During the court session, Anand indicated that the compilation would be lodged before the day's end, adding that no question of jurisdiction arose in connection with Sanon's matter. A follow-up hearing in the case has been scheduled for 29 October.
A growing queue of petitions over personality rights — brought by film and sports personalities alongside other public figures — forms the wider context in which the Delhi High Court now finds itself hearing these matters. At the heart of such disputes typically lie claims that a person's name, image, voice, or other defining personal attributes were drawn upon — often for profit — without that individual's permission.
Among the figures whose personality rights petitions have come before the court are actors Kangana Ranaut, Tabu, and Vijay Deverakonda, cricketers Abhishek Sharma and Yuvraj Singh, politician Shashi Tharoor of the Congress party, and Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan.
Wider adoption of digital tools and AI-driven technologies has added layers of complexity to an already contested area of law, particularly where disputes touch on allegedly unauthorised reproductions in digital form, identity impersonation, synthetic media such as deepfakes, and the commercial exploitation of a public figure's likeness. Those rights, in their most widely held interpretation, shield elements of a person's identity from being used without consent.
Where such conflicts arise, the legal terrain can touch on privacy protections, rights over one's public image, ownership of creative or commercial assets, and how a person's identity gets used for financial gain. When weighing protections tied to a public figure's identity, courts must also account for how those rights sit alongside other recognised interests — among them freedom of expression, journalistic reporting, artistic endeavour, and comparable lawful purposes.
A brief of legal materials assembled at the tribunal's request is intended to help it work through two interrelated questions: how far personality rights warrant protection, and which judicial body holds proper jurisdiction over such claims.
