By Huda Jafri
Halloween has always belonged to ghosts, phantoms and things that refuse to stay buried. But the most unsettling hauntings of the digital age are no longer confined to folklore. They are being engineered by generative artificial intelligence.
Imagine a legendary singer releasing a brand-new song decades after their death. An iconic actor appears in an advertisement endorsing a product they never used. A beloved public figure delivers a political speech they never made. Their faces are familiar, their voices eerily convincing, and their audiences may have no idea that the performances are synthetic.
These are not merely questions of technological novelty. They concern consent, reputation, commercial exploitation and the legal protection of identity.
In India, courts have increasingly recognised the importance of protecting living celebrities from the unauthorised commercial use of their names, voices, likenesses and distinctive mannerisms. Yet the legal position becomes considerably less certain when the individual whose identity is being exploited is no longer alive.
The paradox is striking: copyright can continue protecting eligible creative works for decades after their authors die, while personality rights may not survive death as inheritable rights.
The technology can resurrect the celebrity. The law, however, has yet to settle who gets to speak for the ghost.
Protecting Breathing Icons in a Digital Age
Indian courts have begun constructing meaningful legal safeguards against the unauthorised exploitation of celebrity identity. Although personality rights are not governed by one comprehensive statute, judicial decisions have drawn upon privacy, publicity rights, passing off, intellectual property principles and the constitutional right to dignity.[1]
Three cases demonstrate how courts have responded to the growing threat of digital impersonation.
- Jackie Shroff: When AI learns to say “Bhidu”
In Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors. (2024), the Delhi High Court confronted the unauthorised exploitation of actor Jackie Shroff’s distinctive identity across digital platforms.[2]The dispute involved the commercial use of his name, image, voice and other recognisable attributes, including merchandise, manipulated content and an unlicensed AI chatbot designed to respond as though it were the actor himself.
On 15 May 2024, the Court granted interim protection against specified unauthorised uses of his personality, including certain commercial AI-generated content and chatbot activity. It also directed the blocking of identified infringing links.
The case was significant because it moved the personality-rights debate beyond conventional photographs and merchandise. An AI chatbot can simulate the impression of interacting with a real celebrity, potentially misleading users into believing that the celebrity has authorised or endorsed the experience.
But the decision concerned a living actor. It does not resolve whether an estate could secure the same protection after the actor’s death.
That distinction lies at the heart of the post-mortem rights debate. If an AI system can imitate a celebrity convincingly enough to commercialise their identity, should that commercial value disappear merely because the celebrity has died?
- Arijit Singh: A voice that algorithms can steal
In Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP & Ors. (2024), the Bombay High Court confronted an even more technologically specific problem: AI tools capable of generating artificial recordings that imitated the celebrated singer’s voice.[3]The singer sought protection for his name, vocal style, singing technique, image, signature and other identifying characteristics. The allegations included the use of AI platforms to convert audio into synthetic versions of his voice and the promotion of tools that enabled users to reproduce his vocal identity without authorisation.
On 26 July 2024, the Court granted ad-interim relief restraining specified defendants from exploiting Singh’s personality and publicity rights without consent. The order specifically addressed AI tools that synthesise Singh’s voice or convert other voices into it, and restrained the creation of new audio or video content using his name, voice, likeness or persona without consent.
The importance of the case lies in its recognition that a voice is more than a sequence of sounds. For a performer, it may be an identifiable professional asset, a source of livelihood and an integral component of personal identity.
Consider the implications if a deceased singer’s voice could be cloned to release new songs, generate advertising jingles or simulate endorsements. Even if the synthetic recording does not reproduce a particular original sound recording, it could still raise difficult questions about identity, consent and commercial appropriation.
Copyright law may protect an existing recording or composition. But does that automatically confer a general right to prevent every synthetic imitation of the performer?
The two questions are not the same. And the difference becomes especially consequential when the performer is no longer alive to object.
- Anil Kapoor: The face that the internet could not own
In Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. (2023), the Delhi High Court considered a broad range of alleged online misuses of actor Anil Kapoor’s identity, including manipulated images, unauthorised merchandise, misuse of his name and voice, and AI-generated content.[4]On 20 September 2023, the Court granted an interim injunction against specified forms of unauthorised exploitation. The protection covered the actor’s name, likeness, image, voice and other aspects of his persona, including misuse through AI, machine learning, deepfakes and face morphing.
The dispute demonstrated that digital identity theft is not limited to impersonation for entertainment. An unauthorised image, video or synthetic advertisement may create the false impression that a celebrity has endorsed a product, participated in an event or consented to a commercial arrangement.
For a living celebrity, a court order may offer a route to restrain such activity. For a deceased celebrity, however, the question is more complicated: who has standing to bring the claim, what right survives, and which remedies remain available?
These cases establish an important trend in Indian jurisprudence. They do not establish that personality rights automatically survive death or that every AI imitation is unlawful. The unresolved issue is whether the law can protect a deceased person’s identity without treating that identity as an unrestricted property right.
Beyond the Grave
Death ordinarily marks the end of a person’s ability to exercise personal rights. Yet it does not necessarily extinguish every legal interest connected with their work, property or commercial legacy. Copyrights may continue, trade marks may remain in force, and contractual or other proprietary interests may pass to an estate.
The real uncertainty concerns the personality itself: the face, voice, likeness and distinctive identity that made the person recognisable.
Three Indian disputes reveal why this question remains unsettled.
- Sushant Singh Rajput: A father’s fight to protect his son’s legacy
Few cases illustrate the emotional and legal complexity of posthumous personality rights more poignantly than Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors., concerning late actor Sushant Singh Rajput.[5]Following the actor’s death in June 2020, his father, Krishna Kishore Singh, approached the Delhi High Court seeking to restrain the production and release of films based on his son’s life without the family’s consent. The dispute included the film Nyay: The Justice and raised questions about whether the deceased actor’s legal heir could prevent commercial depictions of his life and identity.
On 10 June 2021, the Court declined to grant the requested interim injunction.[6] On 11 July 2023, the Court delivered a detailed judgment rejecting the father’s claim that the actor’s privacy, publicity and personality rights could be inherited by him. The Court also considered the public-domain information used in the film and the implications for freedom of expression.[7]
The case exposed a fundamental distinction: inheriting a person’s estate does not automatically mean inheriting every personal right that individual possessed during life.
For AI-generated media, the implications are unsettling. If a family cannot establish an inheritable personality right to control a film depicting a deceased celebrity, what happens when a technology company creates a new synthetic performance using that celebrity’s face or voice?
The judgment did not decide that specific AI question. Nevertheless, it illustrates why families may struggle to rely on personality-rights doctrine alone when challenging digital recreations of deceased relatives.
The case also requires an important qualification. It does not mean that a deceased celebrity’s estate loses every possible legal remedy. Copyright, trade mark, contractual and passing-off claims may remain available where their respective requirements are met.
The unresolved problem is that these rights may protect particular works, commercial identifiers or misleading representations without necessarily giving the estate comprehensive control over the celebrity’s identity.
- Jayalalithaa: Can a family control the story told after death?
The dispute surrounding former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J. Jayalalithaa presented a related question: can a relative prevent filmmakers from telling the story of a deceased public figure without the family’s approval?In Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay & Ors., Jayalalithaa’s niece challenged productions based on her aunt’s life, including the film Thalaivii and the web series Queen. Her objections included concerns about personality rights, privacy and the portrayal of the former Chief Minister.[8]
On 16 April 2021, the Madras High Court rejected the appeal. The Court held that Jayalalithaa’s personal privacy and personality rights could not simply be inherited by her niece. It also considered freedom of speech and artistic expression in relation to films and dramatisations about public figures.
The dispute highlights two interests that must not be confused.
First, a deceased person’s personality rights do not automatically pass to relatives. Second, surviving family members may have independent privacy or other legal interests, but their relationship with a public figure does not necessarily give them a blanket veto over every biography, film or dramatisation.
The distinction becomes critical in the age of generative AI. A filmmaker may create a dramatisation to explore a historical figure’s life, while a company may use AI to make that same person appear to endorse a product.
Both involve a recognisable identity, but their purposes and potential harms differ considerably.
The Jayalalithaa litigation did not concern AI-generated replicas, nor did it establish that all claims involving a deceased person’s likeness are barred. Its broader lesson is that a family’s emotional and historical connection to a public figure does not, by itself, establish an inheritable monopoly over that figure’s identity.
The Great Copyright and Trade Mark Paradox: Art Lives, Persona Dies
The contradiction becomes clearer when copyright and personality rights are placed side by side.
Under Section 22 of the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright in an original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work generally lasts for the author’s lifetime plus 60 years, calculated from the beginning of the calendar year following the author’s death. Special rules apply to certain categories of works and circumstances.[9]
Section 57 separately protects an author’s special rights, including rights of attribution and integrity, subject to the statute’s terms and scope.[10]
These provisions can preserve important interests in creative works long after their authors die. But they do not confer a universal right to control a person’s identity.
A deceased musician’s estate might still control the copyright in a qualifying composition or recording. That does not automatically mean it owns every sound that resembles the musician’s voice.
Similarly, a deceased actor’s estate may hold rights in particular films, photographs or recordings, but those rights do not necessarily prevent every newly generated depiction of the actor.
Trade marks provide another possible avenue. A celebrity’s name or other identifying feature may be registered and commercially protected, and passing off may be relevant where its legal requirements are satisfied. However, a trade mark is not a universal substitute for personality rights: the nature of the mark, the use in question and the likelihood of confusion or other legally relevant harm all matter.[11]
This creates three distinct legal questions:
- Is a protected creative work being copied?
- Is a protected trade mark being used, or is a misleading commercial association being created?
- Is a person’s identity being exploited in a way that should be legally actionable even when neither of the first two questions produces a clear answer?
The third question is the most difficult.
An AI system could generate a song in a deceased singer’s recognisable vocal style without reproducing a particular recording. A synthetic advertisement could depict a deceased actor endorsing a product without using an existing film clip. In either situation, copyright or trade mark law may be relevant, but neither necessarily resolves the broader question of posthumous control over identity.
The central policy challenge is therefore not simply to extend copyright. It is to determine whether a separate, carefully defined right should protect a deceased person’s identity against certain forms of unauthorised exploitation.
Conclusion:
The cases involving Sushant Singh Rajput and Jayalalithaa highlight the uncertainty surrounding post-mortem personality rights in India, while those involving Jackie Shroff, Arijit Singh and Anil Kapoor demonstrate the growing judicial response to digital identity misuse during life.
Together, these decisions reveal a significant legal gap: copyright and trade mark laws may protect creative works and commercial interests, but they do not necessarily prevent the unauthorised digital recreation of a deceased person’s identity.
The solution is not to prohibit every portrayal of the dead or grant families absolute control over their legacy. Rather, India must strike a balance between protecting identity against unauthorised commercial exploitation and preserving freedom of expression, artistic creativity and historical discourse.
As generative AI makes it increasingly easy to simulate the faces and voices of the deceased, the question is no longer merely whether the dead can speak again, but whether the law should recognise a limited, inheritable right to control how they do so.
Aysha Sasmin, Intern at S.S. Rana & Co. has assisted in the research of this article.
[1] Constitution of India, art. 21.
[2] Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors., CS(COMM) 389/2024, 2024:DHC:4046 (Del HC, order dated 15 May 2024).
[3] Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP & Ors., Interim Application (L) No. 23560 of 2024 in COM IPR Suit (L) No. 23443 of 2024 (Bom HC, order dated 26 July 2024).
[4] Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., CS(COMM) 652/2023, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914 (Del HC, order dated 20 September 2023).
[5] Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors., CS(COMM) 187/2021, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3997 (Del HC, judgment dated 11 July 2023).
[6] Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors., CS(COMM) 187/2021 (Del HC, order dated 10 June 2021).
[7] Constitution of India, art. 19(1)(a).
[8] Deepa Jayakumar v. A.L. Vijay & Ors., O.S.A. No. 75 of 2020 (Mad HC, DB, judgment dated 16 April 2021).
[9] Copyright Act, 1957, s. 22.
[10] Copyright Act, 1957, s. 57.
[11] Trade Marks Act, 1999, ss. 27(2), 28 and 29.