Violations That Need No Passport: Borderless Nature Of Personality Rights Harm

In an era where digital communication has dissolved geographical borders, personal identity has become a free-floating asset capable of travelling globally without permission. A person's face, name, voice, movements, and behavioural traits now circulate with alarming ease, often appearing in contexts entirely divorced from reality. The disturbing truth of the twenty-first century is that personality rights violations do not require a passport or a confirmed travel ticket. They move instantly, without regard for territorial boundaries, and often without any traceable origin. This has transformed personality rights from a niche concern of celebrities into a universal civil right essential for every citizen navigating the digital world.

Courts in India are increasingly confronted with cases arising from identity misuse. Yet the pace and sophistication of modern violations—particularly those driven by artificial intelligence—are far outstripping the capacity of the law to respond. The modern citizen is exposed to a world where a deepfake video, a cloned voice message, or a morphed image can cause social, financial, and emotional upheaval before any remedy can materialize.

The Expanding Legal Landscape of Personality Rights in India

Indian law has gradually constructed the foundation of personality rights through constitutional principles, tort law, and judicial innovation. Initially, identity protection was largely limited to public figures whose image or voice had marketable value. Films, advertising campaigns, and merchandise frequently became battlegrounds for unauthorized exploitation. Over time, however, courts began to recognize that identity is not merely commercial property but an extension of autonomy and dignity.

A significant shift occurred after the Supreme Court's recognition of privacy as a fundamental right in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India. Privacy was interpreted as encompassing dignity, personal autonomy, and control over personal information. This judgment provided the conceptual framework through which personality rights today are understood: as an inseparable element of individual liberty. The right to control how one's identity appears in the public sphere is no longer dependent on celebrity status but is inherent in the broader right to privacy.

Modern jurisprudence has therefore moved beyond questions of commercial gain to acknowledge injury to dignity, emotional harm, and the deeply personal consequences of having one's likeness hijacked and placed into contexts beyond one's control. As AI-generated impersonation becomes more common, this doctrinal shift has become indispensable.

Identity Misuse in a Digital Society: Lessons from Real Events

India has already witnessed several disturbing incidents that expose the vulnerability of both public figures and ordinary citizens. One of the most widely discussed examples occurred when a deepfake video of actor Rashmika Mandanna went viral on social media. Her face was seamlessly superimposed onto a video featuring another woman, creating a false and compromising portrayal. Even after the truth surfaced, the digital footprint remained impossible to fully erase, demonstrating how reputational harm becomes irreversible in the digital ecosystem.

Courts have also been approached by individuals whose voices have been cloned by scammers to defraud their family members. Such incidents, increasingly reported across major cities and small towns alike, reveal that it is no longer only celebrities whose identity can be misappropriated. A college student in Kolkata recently discovered her morphed images being circulated in local messaging groups, causing immense psychological distress. Similarly, a government school teacher in Uttar Pradesh faced social ostracism after explicit deepfakes bearing her face began circulating in her district. These incidents show that identity misuse is now a pervasive threat that touches ordinary lives with devastating consequences.

Even celebrities encounter procedural hurdles depending on geography. A prominent South Indian actor was forced to approach the City Civil Court in Hyderabad—rather than the High Court—because Telangana lacks original civil jurisdiction for such suits. This practical example illustrates how access to swift judicial protection depends significantly on the region in which the victim resides.

The Uneven Terrain of Original Side Jurisdiction

India's judicial map is uneven when it comes to first-instance access for personality rights cases. Only four High Courts—Delhi, Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta—possess ordinary original civil jurisdiction. This empowers citizens within their territorial reach to approach them directly for injunctions and urgent

remedies. These courts also possess the institutional familiarity and technological understanding required for urgent takedowns, monitoring orders, and complex digital disputes.

This creates a structural imbalance. Individuals from cities without such High Court jurisdiction must begin their legal journey before district courts. In matters involving deepfakes or fast-moving digital impersonation, this delay can be fatal to the victim's reputation. A morphed image that spreads across platforms in minutes cannot be adequately contained by judicial processes that begin with several rounds of notice, filing scrutiny, and procedural steps. The consequence is that the same harm receives dramatically different levels of protection, solely based on the geography of the victim.

Judicial Responses: A Growing Concern but Fragmented Remedies

High Courts in Delhi and Bombay have issued several notable injunctions affirming that unauthorized use of a person's identity—whether through traditional means or AI-generated content—constitutes a violation of privacy and dignity. The courts have consistently recognized the irreversible nature of digital harm. In cases involving Amitabh Bachchan, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, Karan Johar, and others, courts have restrained false endorsements, unauthorized merchandise, and AI-generated impersonations. These orders demonstrate judicial willingness to intervene swiftly when identity misuse threatens reputation or autonomy.

However, judicial interventions remain reactive and case-specific. They do not yet amount to a unified doctrinal framework applicable across all High Courts or district courts. As a result, the law is evolving in fragments, producing uncertainty and inconsistent remedies. Without a national legislative approach, courts are compelled to craft solutions on an ad hoc basis while grappling with a rapidly advancing technology.

The Ordinary Citizen: The New Epicentre of Risk

While celebrities often appear at the forefront of litigation, the most vulnerable victims of identity misuse today are ordinary people. The democratization of AI tools has made it effortless to create synthetic videos featuring neighbours, colleagues, ex-partners, classmates, or total strangers. In small towns, where rumours travel faster than fact-checking, the social damage can be immense. A teenager in Bengaluru recently found her AI-generated images used to create a

fake dating profile, leading to harassment and threats. A middle-aged banker in Mumbai discovered that scammers had replicated his voice to authorize fraudulent transactions.

These real-life incidents demonstrate that personality rights violations are now common threats embedded in everyday existence. In many cases, the harm is compounded by social stigma, lack of financial resources to pursue litigation, and limited digital literacy. The absence of accessible legal remedies leaves countless victims with little option except silence.

The Global Shift and India's Legislative Vacuum

Nations worldwide are beginning to understand that deepfakes and identity misuse require regulatory responses quite different from traditional data protection laws. The European Union has moved toward stringent transparency requirements, watermarking obligations, and liability frameworks for AI- generated content. The United States, China, and South Korea have enacted regulations aimed at criminal misuse, mandatory labeling of synthetic media, and platform responsibility.

India, despite being one of the largest digital populations in the world, lacks a dedicated statute addressing personality rights or AI-generated deepfakes. The country relies on a combination of constitutional protections, cybercrime laws, and judicial creativity. This reactive framework is inadequate for a challenge that evolves daily and spreads instantaneously.

The Urgent Need for a National Framework

Given the borderless nature of identity misuse, India must adopt a coherent national regime that recognizes personality rights as essential digital rights. Such a framework must harmonize civil remedies, criminal sanctions, platform accountability, and preventive technological measures. Uniform jurisdictional access is vital so that victims across India can approach Courts without structural disadvantages. Public awareness programmes, real-time reporting platforms, and digital forensic support for courts are essential components of a modern legal response.

A comprehensive personality rights protective regime would not only protect individuals but also promote trust in digital interactions and strengthen the constitutional guarantee of dignity.

Personal identity today floats freely in the digital universe, vulnerable to exploitation in ways unimaginable a decade ago. The borderless nature of personality rights violations challenges traditional notions of jurisdiction and remedy. Whether through deepfakes, voice cloning, or manipulated photographs, the modern digital environment exposes every citizen to risks that travel instantaneously and leave lasting marks.

India has taken important steps through judicial interventions, but the absence of a unified national framework threatens to leave millions unprotected. Personality rights cannot remain a privilege restricted to the famous. They must be recognized as civil rights essential to the privacy, dignity, and safety of every individual. In a world where identity travels without a passport, the law must be equipped to protect it without delay.

Author is an advocate practicing at Supreme Court of India. Views Are Personal.