In a significant procedural development, Jyoti Singh of the Delhi High Court has recused herself from hearing a petition filed by Aman Gupta, who is seeking protection of his personality rights. The case, which raises concerns over the unauthorised use of images and artificial intelligence-generated content, has now been transferred to the bench of Tushar Rao Gedela. The next hearing is scheduled for May 7.
Background of the Petition
Aman Gupta, widely recognised as the co-founder of consumer electronics brand boAt and a public figure due to his business presence and media appearances, has approached the High Court alleging misuse of his identity. The petition claims that his photographs and AI-generated representations have been used without consent across digital platforms.
According to submissions made by senior advocates Syel Trehan and Nakul Gandhi, who are representing Gupta, such usage constitutes a violation of his personality rights. These rights broadly refer to an individual’s control over the commercial use of their name, image, likeness, and other identifiable attributes.
The plea underscores the increasing challenges posed by emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, in replicating or manipulating identities without authorisation.
What Are Personality Rights?
Personality rights, often referred to as publicity rights, are a developing area of law in India. While not codified in a single statute, these rights are recognised through judicial precedents and are derived from the right to privacy and the right to publicity.
In simple terms, personality rights allow individuals—especially public figures—to prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation of their identity. This includes:
- Use of photographs or videos without consent
- AI-generated deepfakes or synthetic media
- Misleading endorsements or advertisements
- Digital impersonation
Courts in India have increasingly acknowledged the importance of protecting such rights, particularly in the digital age where content can be easily created and disseminated.
Court Proceedings and Recusal
During the hearing on April 30, Justice Jyoti Singh chose to recuse herself from the matter. While the specific reasons for recusal were not detailed in the proceedings, judicial recusals are not uncommon and are typically exercised to maintain impartiality or avoid potential conflicts of interest.
Following the recusal, the matter was directed to be listed before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. The court has scheduled the next hearing for May 7, where the petition is expected to be taken up for further consideration.
Recusal ensures that judicial processes remain transparent and fair, reinforcing public confidence in the legal system.
Growing Legal Focus on AI and Identity Misuse
Gupta’s petition comes at a time when courts globally, including in India, are grappling with the legal implications of artificial intelligence. AI tools are now capable of generating hyper-realistic images, videos, and even voice replicas, often referred to as “deepfakes.”
These technologies, while innovative, raise serious concerns:
- Misrepresentation of individuals
- Spread of misinformation
- Unauthorised commercial exploitation
- Reputational harm
Legal experts note that existing frameworks are being tested as courts attempt to balance innovation with individual rights.
Similar Cases and Judicial Trends
The Delhi High Court has, in recent years, dealt with several cases involving personality rights. The court has granted protection to a number of public figures, reinforcing the legal recognition of such rights.
Notable individuals who have previously sought and received protection include:
- Allu Arjun
- Aniruddhacharya
- Mohanlal
- Gautam Gambhir
- Acharya Balkrishna
- Sonakshi Sinha
- Baba Ramdev
- Kajol
- Vivek Oberoi
- Pawan Kalyan
- Sunil Gavaskar
- Salman Khan
- Ajay Devgn
- Jaya Bachchan
- Sudhir Chaudhary
- Sri Sri Ravi Shankar
- Nagarjuna
- Aishwarya Rai Bachchan
- Abhishek Bachchan
- Karan Johar
In many of these cases, the court issued injunctions restraining unauthorised use of names, images, or likenesses, particularly in commercial contexts.
This growing body of case law indicates a clear judicial trend towards recognising and enforcing personality rights in India.
Why This Case Matters
The case involving Aman Gupta highlights a broader issue that extends beyond celebrities. As digital content creation becomes more accessible, ordinary individuals are also vulnerable to identity misuse.
Key reasons why this case is important:
- Legal clarity: It may contribute to evolving jurisprudence on personality rights in India
- AI regulation: Raises questions about accountability in AI-generated content
- Digital safety: Emphasises the need for safeguards against misuse of personal data
- Commercial implications: Impacts advertising, branding, and influencer marketing
For entrepreneurs and public figures like Gupta, whose personal brand is closely tied to their professional identity, such protections are particularly significant.
Official Position and Legal Representation
While the court has not yet examined the merits of the case in detail, Gupta’s legal team has argued that the unauthorised use of his identity could mislead consumers and harm his reputation.
They contend that AI-generated content, when used without consent, creates a false impression of endorsement or association. This, they argue, is not only a violation of personality rights but also raises concerns under consumer protection laws.
The court is expected to consider these arguments in subsequent hearings.
Public Impact and Industry Implications
The outcome of this case could have implications for multiple stakeholders:
- Content creators: May need to exercise greater caution when using images or AI tools
- Technology platforms: Could face increased scrutiny over user-generated content
- Brands and advertisers: May need stricter compliance checks for endorsements
- General public: Increased awareness about digital rights and privacy
Legal experts suggest that clearer guidelines or legislative measures may be needed to address the challenges posed by AI and digital identity misuse.
What Lies Ahead
With the case now reassigned, all eyes will be on the proceedings scheduled for May 7. The court may examine whether interim relief, such as an injunction, is warranted.
The matter also reflects a broader shift in the legal landscape, where courts are increasingly called upon to address issues arising from technological advancements.
As India continues to expand its digital ecosystem, cases like this are likely to play a crucial role in shaping the balance between innovation and individual rights.
Inputs and images : Hindusthan Samachar
Edited By E. Devanshi varma
Also Read: Assam Assembly Polls See 7 Major Highlights as Turnout Peaks, Counting Set for May 4
Follow us on Google News: Click Here
