India, Dec. 18 -- Celebrity actors, singers, and even sportspersons, are rushing to court to stop the unauthorised use of their name, face, voice or likeness. The surge in these "personality rights" cases has coincided with two developments: the rise of social media and the emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Deepfakes, AI-generated voices, manipulated images and viral memes have made it easier to reproduce and remix a public figure's identity. While the government has recently issued AI Governance Guidelines to address some of these concerns, we are already witnessing the emergence of a new kind of private ordering of rights through celebrity-led personality rights cases. The Delhi High Court's directives to social media firms to protect cricketer Sunil Gavaskar's and Andhra Pradesh deputy chief minister Pawan Kalyan's personality rights are recent instances of this. Celebrities argue that new technologies pose risks to their reputation, privacy and livelihoods. At first glance, these concerns appear reasonable. The law must provide remedies for defamation, obscene portrayals and material deception of the public. In fact, the law already does so for each of these harms. For example, actions for defamation lie under both civil and criminal laws; impersonation through deepfakes can be regulated under provisions of the Information Technology Act and Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS); and selling, circulating obscene material is punishable under the BNS. Still, rather than invoking existing laws, celebrities and courts are fashioning new "personality rights" without clear benchmarks for assessing harm or misuse. Personality rights are not statutory rights in India. They have evolved through case law. These rights allow famous people to control the contexts in which their identity is used and commercialised. The aspects of identity that are protected are very broad and have been characterised as "property rights" and include "(a) the name, including screen name and any abbreviation, moniker, or variation; (b) voice; (c) image; (d) likeness; (e) distinctive performance, appearance, and mannerisms; and (f) signature and any other uniquely identifiable attribute." Courts invoke a medley of doctrines drawn from privacy and dignity, trademark law's principles of confusion and tarnishment, and false advertising laws. Yet, personality rights remain conceptually distinct from each, lacking a coherent and settled legal foundation. Today, the mere use of a famous personality's identity can invite legal trouble based solely on the celebrity's subjective sense of offence. For example, Abhishek Bachchan was unhappy because someone sold T-shirts with his name and face. Anil Kapoor was annoyed with people using the catchphrase "jhakaas". Karan Johar was peeved with his name being used in a movie title. Pawan Kalyan was upset because someone used his photograph for commercial gain. Other celebrities have been distressed by deepfakes placing them in obscene contexts, spreading rumours, or falsely depicting them as endorsing events or websites. While some of these claims are certainly justified, some seem much less so. In the absence of objective standards, there is a tendency to chill speech and expression and unduly interfere with trade and commerce, through blanket injunctions. Allowing celebrities to assert near-absolute control over how they are referenced, represented or discussed is in tension with recognised democratic values. Few benches of the Delhi High Court have cautioned against an over-expansive interpretation of personality rights in DM Entertainment v Baby Gift House and Digital Collectibles v Galactus Funware Technology in 2010 and 2023. Even the Supreme Court in Bata India Ltd v Prakash Jha Productions (2012), in the context of trademark law, has recognised the importance of critical commentary and allowed a more permissive approach for such purposes. These courts have emphasised that news reporting, criticism, satire, parody, informational and artistic expression are protected. However, other benches and high courts apply different standards. They rely on subjective notions such as "negative portrayal" or "harm to reputation" without clearly defining what crosses the legal line. While privacy claims are justified, lines remain blurred when it comes to public records of celebrities. In 1994, the Supreme Court in R Rajagopal v State of Tamil Nadu, had laid down principles related to publicity rights and the right to privacy. While the general rule is that every citizen has the right to privacy, information that forms part of the public record may be published or commented on. In this regard, many aspects of a celebrity's identity exist in the public domain. Use of such material, in contexts that preserve the dignity of the celebrity, should fall within lawful use. Another argument frequently raised by celebrities is that unauthorised use of their persona affects their right to livelihood. This claim is often made without substantiation or evidence. Typically, the commercial success of a celebrity rests on the success of their films, matches, performances and licensed endorsements. It may not lie in eliminating every unofficial reference. There is little evidence that parody videos or fan merchandise meaningfully harm a celebrity's income. If anything, public engagement often enhances it. Faced with unclear legal boundaries and the risk of litigation, content creators, businesses, publishers and artists may choose to avoid referencing or depicting public personalities altogether. The result is a narrowing of the public record, of satire, cultural commentary, biography and creative expression - all of which play a vital role in a democratic society. While preventing malicious online content is a legitimate goal, legal standards and the legal process need clarity. The contours of personality rights, the harms that they seek to defend against and the remedies that may be claimed need to be consolidated and clarified....