Who Owns Your Face?
Updated: Sep 8
Picture a video of you, saying something you never said, doing something you never did. It's circulating faster than a "good morning" forward from your favourite uncle. Your face. Your voice. Somebody else's script.
For years, that was a plot device. In 2026, it's a Tuesday.
And somewhat unexpectedly, Bollywood has ended up on the front line of India's legal response to it. Over the last three years, a growing list of actors, singers, a spiritual guru, a cricket legend and a business tycoon have walked into the Delhi and Bombay High Courts asking a deceptively simple question: if a machine can borrow your face and voice without asking, who does your identity actually belong to?
The courts are still writing the answer, case by case. The story so far is part courtroom drama, part tech thriller, and once you strip away the star power, it's a genuinely useful lesson for the rest of us, who don't have a fan following or a legal team on retainer. Every case below links through to the original order or a detailed report of it, so you can read the source yourself rather than take our word for it.
The Deepfake Docket
Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors. (Delhi HC, 2022). The one that opened the door. An early order stopped the unauthorised commercial use of Mr. Bachchan's persona, planting the first flag for personality rights in the AI era.
Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. (Delhi HC, 2023). The blockbuster. The Court protected not just Anil Kapoor's name and face, but his catchphrase, his voice, his mannerisms, and even AI-morphed GIFs made in his likeness. A trademark case that reads like an origin story for Indian personality rights.
Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP (Bombay HC, 2024). AI platforms had been cloning the singer's voice to generate unauthorised tracks. The Court was visibly unimpressed, holding it violated his personality, publicity and moral rights all at once.
Sadhguru Jagadish Vasudev v. Igor Isakov & Ors. (Delhi HC, 2025). Introduced the "dynamic+" injunction: an order flexible enough to automatically cover new copycat and mirror websites, so the plaintiff isn't forced to file a fresh case every time a new fake surfaces. Smart lawyering for a problem that multiplies faster than litigation can keep up.
Sunil Gavaskar secures relief (Delhi HC, December 2025). Proof this was never only a Bollywood story. Cricket has its own AI impersonation problem, and now its own injunction to show for it.
Sonakshi Sinha v. Character Technologies Inc. & Ors. (Delhi HC, March 2026). This time it wasn't a shady deepfake site. It was AI chatbots built to talk like her. The order restrained unauthorised use of her name, image, voice and likeness across AI tools, deepfakes and chatbots alike.
Dr. Sanjiv Goenka and Allu Arjun (Delhi HC, April 2026). Interim relief for a business leader and a southern-cinema star in the same month, extending the doctrine well beyond Hindi film stardom.
Arjun Kapoor's case adds a boundary (Delhi HC, April 2026). Relief was granted against defamatory and commercially exploitative content, but the Court took care to note that not everything featuring a public figure can be taken down. Parody and fan content stay protected. Free expression gets a say too.
Preity Zinta v. Google & Meta (Bombay HC, June 2026). The fight moved upstream, straight to the platforms hosting the deepfakes. The Court passed takedown orders and pushed intermediaries toward building better systems, instead of leaving every actor to fight the same battle alone.
That's a lot of names for one blog post. But the pattern matters more than any single case: Indian courts have moved from protecting the actor to protecting the identity itself, wherever a machine finds it. Websites, apps, chatbots, ad campaigns: all fair game for an injunction.
Is There Actually a Law for This?
Here's the twist: India doesn't have a Personality Rights Act. There's no single statute to point to. What exists instead is a patchwork, stitched together case by case out of four rather different laws:
Law | What it protects |
Article 21, Constitution | Your right to privacy and dignity, read by courts to include control over your own identity. |
If your name or catchphrase functions like a brand identifier (and "Jhakaas" very much does), it can be protected the same way a logo can. | |
Performers hold moral rights over their voice and performance: the hook that protected Arijit Singh. | |
Using someone's "unique identification feature" (read by courts to include facial geometry and voice biometrics) is a criminal offence: up to three years in prison, fine up to ₹1 lakh. |
Courts have essentially built an entire body of law out of spare parts from four statutes, none of which were written with AI in mind. It's working, for now. But almost every judgment in this space ends with some version of the same appeal: Parliament needs to legislate this properly before the courts run out of borrowed tools.
But I'm Not a Celebrity. Does This Actually Apply to Me?
Actually, yes: more than you'd think. Section 66C of the IT Act doesn't ask for a box-office record before it protects you. If someone lifts your photo, your voice note or your face for an AI video, a scam call or a fake profile, all without your consent, that's the same identity-theft provision at work, celebrity or not. The real difference is that a film star has a legal team on speed dial and a headline waiting; the rest of us usually just have a screenshot and a sinking feeling.
If it happens to you:
Preserve the evidence first: screenshot, save the link, note the date and time, before the content vanishes.
Use the platform's takedown flow. Under the IT Rules, intermediaries must act on a legitimate complaint, and most platforms now have dedicated impersonation and deepfake reporting routes.
Report it under Section 66C at your local cyber cell. This is a criminal offence, not just an inconvenience.
If it's commercial or defamatory, a legal notice (and, if needed, a court injunction) is the same tool the celebrities are using, just scaled to size.
Where This Goes Next
The courts have built the scaffolding. What's missing is the building itself: a dedicated law spelling out what personality rights are, who holds them, and for how long. (Does your identity stay protected after you're gone? A few ongoing matters involving deceased public figures suggest that question is next on the docket.) Until Parliament acts, expect this list to keep growing, one injunction at a time.
Your face, your voice and your name are yours, in a way Indian law is increasingly willing to enforce. You don't need a trademarked catchphrase to have that protection. You just need to know it's already yours.
BRB Legal's Intellectual Property desk tracks developments like these as they unfold.
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice on a specific situation, please consult a qualified professional.
Comments