top of page


By: Isheta T Batra


Imagine your identity – your name, voice, or even your signature walk – splashed across a giant billboard without your permission. This isn't science fiction, but a growing concern in today's digital world.

In India, the legal framework around personality rights has undergone a significant transformation. With the rise of social media and the dominance of online content, the image and identity of public figures, from Bollywood stars to cricket legends, have become valuable assets. As the line between public and private life shrinks and technology races forward, courts and lawmakers are redefining the boundaries of personality rights.

Landmark court decisions and recent legislative actions since 2017 have had a major impact on how these rights are understood and enforced. The explosion of new media platforms and the constant stream of digital content necessitate robust legal frameworks to protect individuals from unauthorized use of their persona for commercial gain.

In recent years, numerous celebrities have fought legal battles to secure their "personality rights." These rights empower individuals to control how their name, image, voice, and even signature traits are used, particularly for commercial purposes.

The legal landscape is grappling with a surge in personality rights cases. These cases represent a clash between the right to control one's identity and the freedom of expression. This article delves into the complexities of personality rights, exploring the legal battles of celebrities, the changing landscape of content creation and advertising, and emerging issues that will shape the future of media and entertainment law in India.


India's legal framework for personality rights is a fascinating patchwork. There's no single, overarching law. Instead, protection stems from a combination of:

  • The Right to Privacy:  The landmark judgement in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) recognised privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. This forms the bedrock for protecting your persona from unauthorized commercial exploitation.


  • The Copyright Act, 1957: This act offers performers and authors control over their work's reproduction and public dissemination. This indirectly protects aspects of their personality linked to their creative endeavours.


  • The Trademark Act, 1999:  Your name, voice, signature, or even unique mannerisms can be registered as trademarks, preventing others from using them for commercial purposes without your consent.  The recent case of PV Sindhu exemplifies this, where her representative took action against brands using her image without permission.


  • The Tort of Passing Off: This legal principle safeguards against misleading the public about the origin of products or services. If someone uses your identity to falsely suggest your association with a brand, you can seek legal recourse.


Traditionally, Indian law did not explicitly recognize personality rights as a distinct legal category. However, the evolution of tort law, combined with influences from common law jurisdictions, has gradually shaped a framework that acknowledges these rights.

From Bollywood icons to cricketing legends, the image and identity of public figures have become fiercely protected commodities. As the line between personal and public blurs, and as technology evolves at a breakneck pace, the judiciary and legislature have been forced to rethink and reshape the boundaries of personality rights. In India with the rise of the entertainment industry, the concept of personality rights gained prominence along with the right to privacy.

The pre-2017 legal landscape of personality rights in India was characterized by a nascent but evolving recognition of the need to protect individuals against unauthorized commercial exploitation of their persona. Through a combination of judicial interpretations and statutory provisions, foundational principles were established, albeit in a fragmented and indirect manner. This period laid the groundwork for the more explicit and robust protections that would emerge post-2017, as India continued to adapt to the challenges and opportunities of a digital and media-rich world.

The judicial approach to personality rights prior to 2017 was largely piecemeal, addressing issues through the lenses of privacy, defamation, and intellectual property. The landmark case  of R. Rajagopal vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), also known as the Auto Shankar case, significantly advanced the right to privacy in India. The Supreme Court held that the right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Although not directly about personality rights, the decision underscored the importance of protecting personal autonomy against unauthorized exploitation. This case marked a pivotal shift, acknowledging that individuals, including celebrities, possess a legitimate interest in controlling the exploitation of their persona for commercial gains. The Court explained that the ‘freedom of the press flows from the freedom of speech and was subject to reasonable restrictions provided in Article 19(2), and that it was important to strike a balance between the freedom of press and the right to privacy’. The Court held privacy to be a ‘right to be let alone’ and that no one could publish anything referring to an individual’s private affairs without the consent of the concerned person unless it was based upon public records.

As the concept developed further, another question came before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court regarding whether the personality rights shall vest with a corporation or not, in the landmark case of ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises[1] wherein, the Delhi High Court clarified that personality rights, including the right to publicity, are exclusive to individuals and cannot be attributed to corporations or non-living entities. The right to publicity stems from the right to privacy and applies only to individuals, not events or event organizers. Transferring an individual's right to publicity to a non-human entity would violate Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution.

Further in D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House (2010), The Delhi High Court recognized the right to publicity, particularly for celebrities, and ruled against unauthorized commercial exploitation of the persona of the singer Daler Mehndi.

In 2011, the Delhi High Court established the concept of the "Publicity Right" in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers[2], defining it as the "right to control commercial use of human identity." This landmark case set forth guidelines regarding the liability for infringement of this right.

Expanding on this in 2015, the Madras High Court, in Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions[3], echoed the Delhi High Court's stance, emphasizing that personality rights primarily pertain to individuals who have achieved celebrity status. The Madras High Court emphasized that infringement of the right of publicity doesn't require proof of falsity, confusion, or deception, especially when the celebrity is readily identifiable. The court suggested that prima facie, the plaintiff is entitled to a favourable order in cases of infringement.


For the past few years, India's legal landscape for personality rights witnessed significant evolution, driven by landmark judicial pronouncements. This period marked the judiciary's proactive stance in recognizing and protecting the commercial interests tied to individuals' identities. Let us see some of these judicial interpretations.

GAUTAM GAMBHIR V. D.A.P & CO. & ANR. (2017)[4]

The Case

The case of Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P & Co. & Anr. is a cornerstone in the evolution of personality rights in India. Gautam Gambhir, a celebrated Indian cricketer, sought legal redress against a Delhi-based restaurant operating with the tagline "By Gautam Gambhir" without his consent. The unauthorized use of his name by D.A.P & Co. raised critical questions about the protection of celebrity identity and the right of publicity in India.

Court Ruiling

The court dismissed the suit filed by Gautam Gambhir, the cricketer, against the restaurant owners using the tagline "By Gautam Gambhir." The court found no evidence that the defendants misrepresented their business as being associated with the plaintiff. It stated that ‘Celebrity status of the plaintiff is not disputed. However, there is no material on record to infer if any time in running the said restaurants with the tagline 'by Gautam Gambhir', the defendant ever represented to the public at large in any manner that the said restaurants were owned by the plaintiff or he was associated with them in any manner. The defendant is running at present four restaurants which were opened at different stages’. It noted that the defendants had been operating their restaurants since 2014 without prior objections from the plaintiff and had taken all necessary permissions, including trademark registrations.

The court emphasized that the defendants consistently used their own images and never portrayed the plaintiff to mislead the public. Furthermore, no substantial evidence indicated that the plaintiff's reputation in cricket was harmed by the defendants' restaurant operations. Thus, the court concluded that the plaintiff's claims lacked merit and denied any relief.


The judgment in "Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P & Co. & Ors" is a significant example of the careful balance courts must strike between protecting personality rights and allowing honest commercial use of common names. It reaffirms the need for clear evidence of public confusion and misrepresentation while underscoring the importance of prompt action by public figures to protect their names and reputations.


The Case

Zee Media Corporation launched a new anchor-free news channel and promoted it through an advertisement campaign. The advertisement, published widely including in the Hindustan Times, made disparaging remarks aimed at famous news reporters, including Mr. Rajat Sharma, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of India TV. Specifically, the advertisement stated "India Mein Rajat Ki Adalat Ab Band," implying that prominent news reporters like Sharma were obsolete due to the launch of Zee's new channel. Sharma found this statement offensive and filed a suit alleging it was disparaging, misleading, and violated his right of publicity (PR).

Court’s Ruiling

The Delhi High Court examined the case and concluded that the use of the statement in the advertisement was indeed disparaging and infringed Sharma's right of publicity. The court referred to precedent-setting cases like Titan Industries vs M/S Ramkumar Jewellers and Shivaji Rao Gaekwad vs M/s Varsha Productions to reaffirm the principles related to right of publicity. It emphasized two key criteria:

  • That the plaintiff (Sharma) possesses a valid and enforceable right in his persona as a well-known media personality.

  • That Sharma was identifiable from the unauthorized use of his persona in the advertisement.


The court highlighted that the infringement of right of publicity does not require proof of falsity, confusion, or deception, especially when the celebrity's identity is clearly identifiable. It further ruled that Sharma's right of publicity extends beyond traditional limits of false advertising laws. Based on these considerations, the Delhi High Court held that Zee's advertisement campaign was prima facie unlawful. It found that the balance of convenience favoured Sharma, thus granting him relief against Zee's disparaging advertisement.



The judgement emphasizes the importance of protecting celebrities' personas through the legal concept of right of publicity (PR). This right ensures that celebrities have control over how their image, likeness, and identity are used for commercial purposes. It contrasts with the right to privacy, which protects individuals from unwanted public exposure. In the case discussed, involving Rajat Sharma and Zee Media Corporation, the court recognized Sharma's right of publicity was violated when Zee used his name and the title of his show, 'Aap Ki Adalat,' in a disparaging and misleading manner in their advertisement. This violated Sharma's right to control how his identity and professional reputation were portrayed in the public domain.


Drawing from legal precedents like the Shivaji Rao case and Titan Industries, the court reaffirmed that Sharma's right of publicity is integral to his broader personality rights. It highlighted that celebrities like Sharma are increasingly vigilant in enforcing these rights to prevent unauthorized commercial exploitation of their image and likeness. Therefore, the court's decision underscored the significance of PR in safeguarding celebrities' reputations and professional identities from misuse and derogatory representations by third parties, as exemplified by Zee's advertisement campaign in this case.


The Case

The Applicant is the niece of Dr. J. Jayalalithaa, the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu (the Former CM). Respondents 1 and 2 acquired rights to produce a film titled “Thalaivi” based on a book about Dr. J. Jayalalithaa’s life. Respondent 3 planned a web series titled “Queen”, also inspired by her life. The Applicant filed for an interim injunction to restrain all Respondents from releasing these productions without her consent, alleging infringement of her late aunt’s posthumous privacy and personality rights.

Court’s Ruiling

The court scrutinized whether the Applicant’s familial relationship with the Former CM conferred upon her the right to enforce posthumous privacy and personality rights. Held that while the Applicant may have a personal interest, she did not demonstrate sufficient legal standing (locus standi) to claim enforceable rights on behalf of her late aunt without clearer evidence of legal entitlement to such rights.

Acknowledged the productions were based on real-life events but fictionalized to some extent, which triggered the debate on whether artistic expression could override posthumous privacy concerns.

Recognized the importance of protecting privacy rights, even posthumously, but balanced it against the right to freedom of expression, emphasizing the need for careful judicial consideration in such matters.


This case highlighted significant legal complexities regarding posthumous privacy and personality rights in the realm of media portrayals of public figures. It underscored the need for a balanced approach that respects both individual rights and freedoms of expression, setting a precedent for future cases dealing with similar issues under Indian law.


The Case

The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking a perpetual injunction against the appellants to restrain them from releasing a film titled "Murder," allegedly based on her life events involving her marriage, her husband's murder, and subsequent family tragedies. The respondent claimed that the appellants collected real-life information about her and her deceased family members without consent and intended to portray these events in a film, causing her mental agony and public embarrassment. The appellants argued that the events were in the public domain, based on public records and media coverage, and thus they had a right to create a fictional film based on these events without violating the respondent's right to privacy.

Court’s Ruiling

The court recognized that events such as the respondent's marriage, her husband's murder, and subsequent legal proceedings were already widely reported in the media and public domain. It held that once events become a matter of public record, the right to privacy diminishes in relation to those events.

Acknowledging the respondent's distress, the court balanced her privacy concerns against the appellants' rights to artistic expression and freedom of speech. It emphasized that the appellants' film was a creative work based on public events rather than a direct invasion of the respondent's private life.

Conditionally allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court's injunction. However, it imposed strict conditions: the appellants were prohibited from using the respondent's name, her deceased husband's name, or her deceased father's name in the film or related materials. Additionally, the court directed the appellants to include a disclaimer stating that the film is a work of fiction and any resemblance to real-life events is coincidental.

Cited the Supreme Court's precedent in R. Raja Gopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, affirming that while individuals have a right to privacy, this right is attenuated when events are part of the public domain, subject to certain exceptions. Allowed the appeal with conditions to protect the respondent's privacy to a reasonable extent, while permitting the appellants to proceed with their film project under specified restrictions.


This case underscores the delicate balance between an individual's right to privacy and the freedom of expression in artistic works based on public events, setting guidelines for future disputes involving the portrayal of personal tragedies in media and entertainment.


The Case

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants produced and directed a film on Sushant Singh's life without obtaining necessary permissions from the family. The plaintiff contended that the film contained defamatory statements and violated Sushant Singh's right to privacy by retelling his life based on unverified news reports.

Court’s Ruiling

The court firmly established that personality rights, encompassing privacy, publicity, and personality itself, are not inheritable. This means that upon the death of an individual, these rights cease to exist and cannot be claimed or enforced by successors or family members. This ruling set a precedent regarding the legal status of personality rights posthumously.

The court evaluated the content of the film and its potential infringement on Sushant Singh Rajput's personality rights. It concluded that since the film was based on publicly available information and did not directly violate any personality rights during his lifetime, it was not infringing upon those rights posthumously. This decision emphasizes the importance of the source of information in determining the validity of claims regarding personality rights.

The court rejected the notion of "celebrity rights" as distinct from those of ordinary individuals. It asserted that all individuals, regardless of their status, are entitled to the same protection of their personality rights under the law. This reaffirmed the principle of equality before the law and underscored the universality of personality rights.


Overall, the court's decision regarding personality rights in this case served to reinforce the importance of these rights, establish their legal status posthumously, and ensure their equal protection for all individuals under the law.


The Case

Amitabh Bachchan, a veteran Bollywood actor, filed a suit seeking protection of his publicity rights against defendants involved in a fake Kaun Banega Crorepati (KBC) lottery scam and other fraudulent activities. The defendants were misusing Bachchan's celebrity status, including his name, image, voice, and persona attributes, to deceive the public for commercial gain. The misuse occurred without Bachchan's permission or authorization.

Court’s Ruiling

The Delhi High Court granted an ad-interim ex-parte injunction in favour of Amitabh Bachchan. The court found that Bachchan had established a prima facie case in his favour. The court acknowledged that the defendants were misusing Bachchan's celebrity status to promote their own activities without authorization. It noted that this unauthorized use could cause irreparable harm to Bachchan's reputation and goodwill. The balance of convenience favored Bachchan, leading the court to grant the injunction restraining further infringement of his publicity rights.


Interim Order
  • Directed telecom and IT authorities to pull down infringing websites and links.

  • Instructed domain name registrants from creating third-party rights on domains related to Bachchan.

  • Ordered telecom service providers to block access to phone numbers used for circulating infringing messages.


The court's decision in Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi and Ors. holds significant legal implications. It underscores the evolving landscape of personality rights protection in India, particularly highlighting a celebrity's right to govern the commercial use of their persona. This precedent emphasizes the judiciary's recognition of the inherent value and control that celebrities should maintain over their public image and identity.

Additionally, the case exposes the deficiencies within current intellectual property laws in effectively addressing infringements against personality rights. It calls attention to the need for more robust statutory provisions that can adequately safeguard celebrities from unauthorized exploitation of their personas for commercial gain.

In conclusion, Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi and Ors. marks a pivotal moment in Indian jurisprudence concerning personality rights. It sets a crucial precedent by defining and protecting a celebrity's right to control the use of their persona, thereby mitigating unauthorized commercial exploitation. The case underscores the judiciary's role in adapting legal frameworks to address contemporary challenges in protecting individuals, especially celebrities, from exploitation and misuse of their identities in the public domain.[9]


The Case

Anil Kapoor, a prominent figure in the Indian entertainment industry, discovered that his image, voice, likeness, and domain names associated with him were being utilized without his consent. Additionally, there were reports of his image being morphed in derogatory manners on certain websites, which could potentially harm his reputation and image built over decades of hard work. To address these infringements on his rights, Anil Kapoor sought legal recourse from the Delhi High Court.

Court’s Ruiling

The Delhi High Court granted ex-parte interim relief in favor of Anil Kapoor, acknowledging the urgency of the matter and the potential harm caused by the unauthorized use of his image and likeness. The court ordered an immediate halt to the use of Anil Kapoor's image, voice, likeness, and domain names without his express consent.

The court directed the transfer of control of the domain names,, and to Anil Kapoor, subject to the payment of requisite fees.

The court granted an injunction against the unauthorized use of the word "Jhakaas" in a manner similar to how Anil Kapoor used it in the film YUDDH, considering its association with his persona and potential confusion among the public.


This case highlights the importance of protecting personality rights, including image, likeness, and domain names, in the digital age specifically through Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools. It underscores the need for individuals to safeguard their reputation and integrity from unauthorized exploitation. Additionally, the judgment sets a precedent for addressing issues related to domain name squatting and the misuse of celebrity-associated phrases or expressions. Overall, the decision reaffirms the courts' role in upholding the rights of public figures and ensuring accountability for unauthorized use of their persona.


The Case

Plaintiff, Jaikishan Kakubhai Shroff, a well-known Indian actor, has filed a lawsuit seeking protection of his name, image, likeness, persona, voice, and other attributes of his personality against unauthorized use over the internet. Plaintiff is a celebrated actor in the Indian film industry with appearances in over 220 films, television shows, and web series. Plaintiff's name "JACKIE SHROFF" is uniquely associated with him and is protectable as a trademark. The lawsuit is brought against identified and unidentified parties who have allegedly infringed on the Plaintiff's personality rights.

This case raises critical questions about the boundaries of personality rights and the legal recourse available to public figures against unauthorized commercial exploitation.

Court's Ruling

The court upheld Jackie Shroff's right to control the commercial use of his likeness and persona. It recognized the right of publicity as an inherent aspect of personality rights, ensuring individuals have the autonomy to determine the commercial exploitation of their identities.

The court found that The Peppy Store's sale of merchandise featuring Jackie Shroff's likeness constituted an unauthorized use of his persona for commercial gain. Despite Shroff's public status as a celebrity, the sale of merchandise required explicit consent due to its commercial nature.

By selling merchandise without Jackie Shroff's consent, The Peppy Store and others violated Shroff's personality rights. The court emphasized the importance of respecting individuals' rights to control the commercial use of their identities, regardless of their public prominence.

The court granted an injunction restraining The Peppy Store and others from selling merchandise featuring Jackie Shroff's likeness without his consent. Additionally, the court awarded damages to Shroff as compensation for the unauthorized use of his persona, acknowledging the commercial harm inflicted.


The case represents a significant milestone in the protection of personality rights in India. By affirming Jackie Shroff's right of publicity and ruling against the unauthorized sale of merchandise featuring his likeness, the court reinforces the importance of individual autonomy over their identities. This ruling not only strengthens the legal framework for protecting personality rights but also serves as a deterrent against unauthorized exploitation. As India navigates the evolving landscape of individual rights and commercial interests, this case stands as a guiding precedent for upholding the dignity and autonomy of celebrities in the digital age.


‘Deepfakes’ refer to synthetic media content created using artificial intelligence (“AI”) techniques. Advanced algorithms analyze and manipulate existing images, videos or audio to produce highly realistic (and often deceptive) content.[12]

Deepfakes. The term itself conjures up images of nightmarish scenarios – a politician delivering a fabricated speech, a celebrity endorsing a product they never touched, or even a personal video doctored to cause irreparable harm. As Artificial Intelligence (AI) continues its relentless march, deepfakes pose a unique challenge to a fundamental human right – the right to control one's own personality.

Deepfakes leverage AI to create hyper-realistic audio and video content that seamlessly replaces a person's likeness with another. This technology, while holding immense potential in areas like entertainment, can be easily weaponized to manipulate public perception, sow discord, and damage reputations.

India, like many other countries, lacks specific legislation addressing deepfakes and AI-generated content. However, existing laws and principles provide some level of protection for individuals' personality rights. The right to privacy, enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, serves as a foundational protection against unauthorized use of one's likeness. Additionally, intellectual property laws, such as copyright and trademark regulations, offer recourse against the misuse of a person's image or voice for commercial purposes. Despite these legal safeguards, the rapid advancements in AI technology have outpaced regulatory frameworks, leaving a gap in addressing deepfake-related challenges.




The boundaries of personality rights are not limited to the realm of celebrities. The landmark case of Anil Kapoor vs. Simply Life India and Ors (2023) pushed the boundaries further.  Kapoor successfully argued that his unique mannerisms, including his signature dialogue delivery and walking style, were protected aspects of his personality. This case signifies a potential expansion of protection to encompass non-traditional aspects of an individual's persona.




The rise of personality rights has ignited a crucial debate – how much control should individuals have over their image, especially when it clashes with the freedom of expression? This is a complex question with no easy answers. The courts are constantly navigating this tightrope walk, ensuring that individuals have the right to protect their identities while safeguarding the fundamental right to free speech.




The legal framework surrounding personality rights in India is still in its evolutionary phase. Enforcing these rights online, where infringement can be swift and widespread, presents a significant challenge. Additionally, the ongoing development of technology might necessitate further refinements in the legal framework. Nevertheless, the growing body of case law indicates a promising direction – one where individuals have increasing control over how their identities are shaped and disseminated in the digital age.


Further, the challenges posed by the digital era, coupled with evolving societal norms and technological advancements, necessitate a proactive approach from both legislative bodies and judicial authorities. Here’s a detailed analysis of the way forward:


  • Legislative Reforms: One of the primary avenues for fortifying personality rights lies in the realm of legislative reforms. There is a pressing need to enact comprehensive legislation explicitly addressing the nuances of personality rights in the digital age. This legislation should not only reinforce existing protections but also introduce provisions to tackle emerging challenges such as deepfakes, online impersonation, and surreptitious data harvesting. Moreover, clarity on the scope and applicability of personality rights across various mediums, including social media platforms, would go a long way in providing certainty to both rights holders and users.


  • Strengthening Enforcement Mechanisms: While robust laws are indispensable, their efficacy hinges on the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms. There is a palpable need to bolster the infrastructure and resources dedicated to monitoring and enforcing personality rights violations. This entails equipping regulatory bodies with the requisite tools and expertise to swiftly address infringements, thereby serving as a deterrent to potential violators. Additionally, fostering collaboration between law enforcement agencies, tech companies, and advocacy groups can amplify the impact of enforcement efforts and facilitate timely intervention in cases of abuse or exploitation.


  •  Promoting Public Awareness and Education: Empowering individuals to assert their rights and navigate the complex terrain of personality rights necessitates a concerted effort to raise public awareness and promote legal literacy. Educational initiatives aimed at educating citizens, especially content creators and influencers, about their rights and responsibilities in the digital ecosystem can foster a culture of respect for personal integrity and privacy. Furthermore, collaborative endeavors involving media literacy programs, workshops, and digital citizenship initiatives can foster a more informed and vigilant society capable of discerning and combatting instances of infringement or abuse.


  • Embracing Technological Solutions: In an era dominated by technological innovation, leveraging technology itself can serve as a potent tool in safeguarding personality rights. From advanced algorithms capable of detecting and mitigating instances of image manipulation to blockchain-based solutions for verifying digital identities, embracing technological advancements can enhance the efficacy of existing protection measures. Furthermore, fostering dialogue and collaboration between tech innovators, legal experts, and rights advocates can spur the development of innovative solutions tailored to address the evolving challenges posed by digital media and online platforms.



The fight for robust personality rights in India is more than just a legal battle; it's a fight for control over our digital identities in a rapidly changing world. By bridging the legislative gap, striking a balance between competing interests, and adapting to new technologies, India can become a leader in safeguarding the digital personas of its citizens.  This, in turn, will foster a vibrant and responsible digital ecosystem where both individual rights and freedom of expression are protected.

As we navigate the complexities of a rapidly evolving landscape, let us remain steadfast in our commitment to upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and respect for human dignity, thereby ensuring a rights-respecting future for generations to come.


[1] 2003 (26) PTC 245

[2] (2012) 50 PTC 486

[3] 2015 (62) PTC 351 (Madras)

[4] 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12167

[5] 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 39281

[6] 2020 SCC OnLine TS 3018

[7] 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3146

[8] 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4110

[10] 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914

[11] 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3664

[12] Barat, Deborshi, Reshma Vaidya Gupte, and Nupur Agrawal. "Can Deepfakes be Leveraged Responsibly?" S&R Associates, 1 Feb. 2024,,%2C%20voice%2C%20likeness%2C%20etc. Accessed 13 June 2024.






66 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page