Bombay HC shields Shruti Haasan from AI deepfakes under Art 21 right to personality
CLAT PG ● Lower importance 3 September 2026
Bombay HC shields Shruti Haasan from AI deepfakes under Art 21 right to personality

What happened

The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to actress Shruti Haasan, restraining third parties from creating or circulating AI-generated deepfakes using her name, voice, image, or likeness without consent. The court invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, recognising a celebrity's right to personality and publicity as part of the right to life and personal liberty. The case marks one of India's earliest judicial recognitions of a personality rights claim against AI-generated content.

Why it matters

This ruling sits at the intersection of Article 21 and the emerging doctrine of personality rights. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, and through expansive judicial interpretation—starting with Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)—it has evolved to protect dignity, privacy, and bodily autonomy. The Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) explicitly held that privacy, including informational self-determination and the right to control one's own image, flows from Article 21.

Personality rights (also called publicity rights) protect individuals—especially public figures—from unauthorised commercial or non-commercial exploitation of their name, image, voice, or likeness. Unlike copyright, personality rights vest in the individual, not the creator of a work. In India, they have been recognised judicially but lack a dedicated statute; courts derive them from Article 21, the tort of passing off, and Section 38A of the Copyright Act (performer's rights).

Deepfakes created by AI present a novel threat: they can fabricate realistic audio-visual content of real people without consent, damaging reputation, dignity, and economic interests simultaneously. The Bombay HC's interim order establishes that the right to control one's own likeness is constitutionally protected, and unauthorised AI-generated content that exploits an individual's persona violates Article 21. This connects to the broader doctrine that the right to privacy includes the right to be let alone and the right to prevent commercial misuse of one's identity—both arms of which are now being tested in the AI era.
🔒
Remember + Why it matters
The key recall facts and exact examiner angle for CLAT PG are in the Crux app.
01
Key figure and date from this topic
02
Specific number or threshold to remember
03
Policy or regulatory implication
Open in Crux — free
Read + Understand free forever · 30-day free trial