Siddhi Khartode is a Third-year student at Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Artificial intelligence can now mimic a person\u2019s voice, reproduce their face, and generate realistic videos that place people in scenes they never acted in. The courts in India have begun to respond but so far, their protection has largely flowed to celebrities<\/a>, leaving open the hard question: what about ordinary citizens? This piece maps the early jurisprudence, outlines the statutory fit and misfit with the existing IP and privacy law and argues for clearer, more inclusive legal tools to protect everyone\u2019s persona from algorithmic misuse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The recent<\/a> litigation trend started with high profile artists seeking injunctions to stop AI platforms and online sellers from using cloned voices and images. In 2024, the Bombay High Court, in the case Arijit Singh v Codible Ventures LLP<\/a> (2024), granted interim protection to singer Arijit Singh<\/a> against AI tool that created voice models allegedly imitating him. The order recognized that unauthorized commercial use of a celebrity\u2019s voice, name, signature or image can prima facie violate their personality rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Building on that line, in October 2025 the Bombay High Court, in a recent case of Asha Bhosale v Mayk Inc.<\/a> (2025), granted ad-interim relief<\/a> to legendary singer Asha Bhosale<\/a>, restraining certain U.S. based AI firms, e-commerce sellers and intermediaries from using or selling products that exploited her voice and other persona attributes via AI cloning technologies. The court directed platforms to take down offending listings and to disclose seller details where appropriate. The court\u2019s prima facie reasoning emphasized that a celebrity\u2019s voice and persona are central to their identity and commercial goodwill, and that making voice conversion tools publicly available without consent undermines that control. As of recent news, the Bombay High Court has granted Asha Bhosale<\/a> ad-interim protection, recognizing her personality rights against unauthorized use of her voice and image through AI platforms. Justice Arif S. Doctor<\/a> emphasized that \u201cmaking AI tools available to enable the conversion of any voice into that of a celebrity without his\/her permission would constitute a violation of the celebrity\u2019s personality rights,\u201d highlighting the infringement of personal identity and public persona.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These orders have triggered more high-profile filings, like cases by Aishwarya Rai<\/a> in the Delhi High Court, consolidating a trend where courts have been willing to intervene rapidly to stop AI driven impersonation of well-known persons. Here too, in the case of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v Aishwaryaworld.com<\/a> (2025), Justice Tejas Karia<\/a> emphasized that the unauthorized use of a person\u2019s name, image or voice via AI not only violates their commercial interests but also encroaches on their fundamental rights to dignity and personal identity. The judgement also highlighted that personality rights are integral to an individual\u2019s autonomy and reputation, and courts must step in to prevent misuse in the digital era.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Plaintiffs typically invoke and rely on a combination of doctrines: from personality and publicity rights<\/a> rooted in privacy and dignity, to moral and performers\u2019 rights under the Copyright Act<\/a>, 1957. They also cite passing-off and unfair competition principles, and use the standard injunction tests of reparable harm and balance of convenience to secure relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Two statutory hooks are often referenced: the performer\u2019s rights and moral rights provisions in the Copyright Act and rules on image and name misuse found in case law. Performer\u2019s rights, under Chapter VIII of the Copyright Act, 1957, protect a performer\u2019s special interest in performances, but they are not drafted for synthetic, AI generated performances<\/a> created without the artist\u2019s participation. The reason being AI-generated or synthetic<\/a> voices are produced through algorithmic training and modelling without any human participation involved in it. The absence of this human agency breaks the link between performer and output. Treating such synthetic reproductions as \u201cperformances\u201d would go beyond its statutory limits which explains why courts often rely more on privacy and personality-based doctrines. Doctrinally, Indian courts have long recognized personality type protections under privacy, dignity and reputation jurisprudence, stemming from landmark decisions<\/a> recognizing control over one\u2019s identity. But this jurisprudence was developed for human publication and broadcast contexts, not for large scale algorithmic cloning. While the current litigation primarily invokes civil and IP doctrines, it is worth noting that existing criminal statutes addressing impersonation and fraud, such as provisions within the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (2023)<\/a>, and the Information Technology Act (2000)<\/a> also apply, though they were not drafted with synthetic AI cloning in mind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So far, most courts orders in India have revolved around well known plaintiffs including popularly known musicians, actors, and public figures. Judges often rely on a celebrity\u2019s recognized fame, goodwill and commercial value to prove irreparable harm and grant interim relief. But what happens when ordinary citizens<\/a> face the same AI misuse? There\u2019s still no Indian judgement confirming that the same legal protection automatically extends to non-eminent individuals. While Article 21 of the Constitution, as reaffirmed in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)<\/a>, guarantees the right to privacy, dignity and autonomy to all individuals, its practical enforcement in AI impersonation cases reveals a significant asymmetry. Ordinary citizens in such cases struggle to quantify harm arising from cloned voices or deepfakes. This disconnect exposes how privacy under Article 21 remains formally universal but procedurally unequal when filtered through existing remedial framework. This blind spot leaves millions exposed to real world harm of cloned voices and images used for online fraud, revenge deepfakes that destroy reputations or even impersonations that sabotage jobs and relationships.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Linking the said societal blind spot, leading to legal consequences, there is also another loophole. India currently has no statute<\/a> that directly criminalizes or regulates AI-based cloning or synthetic identity theft. The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023<\/a>, and other similar regulatory frameworks only govern the processing of personal data by data fiduciaries, but does not cover the creation and dissemination of synthetic data\/content that imitates a real person. As a result, courts are improvising and piecing together privacy, copyright and unfair trade doctrines to fill the gap. But without a dedicated framework, remedies remain fragmented and inconsistent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The actual twist is that India already has laws that could handle impersonation, fraud, misuse of personal identity, such as application of provisions of Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000<\/a> or even Section 319 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a>. But the main contention is that none of these were drafted with AI-generated content or synthetic persona cloning in mind. However, the enforceability of Section 66D remains deeply constrained<\/a>. The offence of \u201ccheating by personation\u201d requires proof of fraudulent or dishonest intent, as well as an intention to cause wrongful loss or gain. AI developers and platforms protect themselves behind claims of parody, satire or artistic expression. So, when people say \u201cthere\u2019s no explicit AI law\u201d, they mean it is not that India lacks laws entirely rather that the existing laws apply only indirectly, often imperfectly, and usually only after harm has already happened. This asymmetry reveals that the true crisis is not doctrinal confusion over copyright, but the absence of a rights-based framework that meaningfully protects ordinary individuals from AI-enabled impersonation and reputational harm. <\/p>\n\n\n\n India\u2019s path forward likely needs a two-track approach. In the short term, courts must continue to stretch existing frameworks from the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Digital Data Protection Act, 2023, to the provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 which would help plug the most immediate harms caused by AI-driven impersonation, deepfakes and voice cloning. The Delhi High Court\u2019s interim injunctions in the Arijit Singh, Asha Bhosale and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan cases show how judicial creativity<\/a> can fill statutory gaps and act as a rapid shield for reputation and identity. But the longer track must be legislative. At a minimum, legislative reform must move beyond broad consultations and adopt targeted interventions. The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology<\/a> (MeitY) has already begun consultations on a comprehensive Digital India Act, designed to replace the outdated IT Act, intended to create a future ready legal framework which also explicitly addresses deepfakes, algorithmic accountability and online platform responsibility. The legislature should also introduce a standalone statutory offence addressing synthetic impersonation and deepfake misuse. The law should also expressly recognize a personality right applicable to all individuals, not just public figures. Such reforms would acknowledge the unique harm posed by AI-driven identity misuse while preserving space for satire and artistic expression. While the law may seem to be catching up, AI itself is a moving target, evolving faster than any legislature can codify. Yet, India\u2019s courts and regulators have shown a willingness to adapt, alongside crafting a jurisprudence that blends constitutional values with technological realities. In that sense, India is not lagging, rather is learning in real time, trying to ensure that innovation and individual rights grow together rather than at each other\u2019s expense. Any expansion of personality or identity-based protections must also be carefully balanced against constitutional guarantees of free expression under Article 19(1)(a). Indian courts have consistently recognized the legitimacy of parody, satire and political commentary, particularly where such expression is transformative and does not mislead the audience. The objective of regulating AI-driven impersonation should therefore not be to prohibit all uses of likeness or voice, but to target non-consensual or misleading dispositions that cause deception. Without such safeguards, personality rights risk being involved selectively by powerful actors while continuing to fail those most vulnerable to AI-driven harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As artificial intelligence continues to blur the boundaries between human identity and digital replication, India\u2019s legal system stands at a pivotal juncture. The recent personality rights injunctions reflect judicial responsiveness, but true resilience will come only when the law evolves to protect every individual, not the public figures, from algorithmic misuse. A forward-looking statutory framework must complement the courts\u2019 proactive approach, ensuring that emerging technologies operate within constitutional limits of dignity, privacy and autonomy. The challenge, therefore, is not to resist innovation but to govern it intelligently, while also crafting a system where creative progress and individual protection coexist. The AI era demands nothing less than a legal architecture as dynamic as the technology it seeks to regulate.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Siddhi Khartode is a Third-year student at Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai Artificial intelligence can now mimic a person\u2019s voice, reproduce their […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1297","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog-series","col-md-6 col-sm-6"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/clt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1297","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/clt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/clt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1297"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/clt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1297\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1298,"href":"https:\/\/clt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1297\/revisions\/1298"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/clt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1297"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1297"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clt.nliu.ac.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1297"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}How the litigation wave began; celebrity cases as precedent<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
What legal tools did plaintiffs invoke and why they\u2019re imperfect<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
What the courts are missing (and why it matters)<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
The way forward<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/strong><\/h4>\n\n\n\n