Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, while hearing Sanon’s plea, indicated that the matter raised questions extending beyond the specific circumstances of the actor’s case. The court asked her counsel to provide a comprehensive compilation explaining the legal principles governing personality rights and the jurisdiction of the High Court’s Intellectual Property Division (IPD) in such disputes.

Court asks for wider legal examination

During the proceedings, Sanon’s lawyer, advocate Pravin Anand, was asked to assist the court by placing relevant judgments and research before it. The court indicated that personality-rights disputes have become increasingly common and that a broader examination of the legal framework may be necessary.

The court sought clarity on what aspects of an individual’s identity can receive legal protection and whether disputes concerning such rights can be considered by the IPD.

Anand explained that personality rights can involve several recognisable elements of a person’s identity, including their name, voice, face, image, photographs and videos. He also highlighted situations in which a person’s identity may allegedly be used commercially without their permission or authorisation.

The court asked the lawyer to provide supporting legal material and a compilation of relevant decisions to help establish the boundaries of these rights. It indicated that the material could assist in determining the broader legal questions involved before passing a detailed order.

Kriti Sanon seeks protection of her identity

Sanon’s petition comes amid growing legal attention around the unauthorised use of celebrities’ identities. Public figures increasingly face situations in which their names, photographs, likenesses, voices or other recognisable characteristics may be used without consent.

For celebrities, such elements can have significant commercial value because their public identity is closely associated with endorsements, entertainment projects, advertising campaigns and social-media presence.

Personality rights generally concern an individual’s ability to control the commercial exploitation of identifiable aspects of their persona. However, the extent and legal basis of such protection can involve several overlapping areas, including privacy, publicity rights, intellectual property and the unauthorised commercial use of identity.

Digital platforms create new legal challenges

The issue has become more complicated with the rapid expansion of digital platforms and artificial intelligence-based technologies.

Digital tools can make it easier to reproduce or manipulate a public figure’s face, voice or appearance. Technologies capable of creating highly realistic synthetic content have also raised concerns about impersonation, deepfakes and the use of celebrity identities in promotional or commercial material.

These developments have increased the importance of determining how far personality-rights protection should extend and what remedies should be available when a person’s identity is allegedly exploited without consent.

At the same time, courts must consider competing legal interests. Protection of a celebrity’s identity cannot be viewed in isolation from issues such as freedom of expression, legitimate news reporting, artistic creativity and other lawful uses of information concerning public figures.

Growing number of celebrity personality-rights cases

The Delhi High Court has witnessed a growing number of personality-rights disputes involving prominent actors, sportspersons and other public figures.

Previous cases before the court have involved personalities such as Kangana Ranaut, Tabu and Vijay Deverakonda, along with cricketers Abhishek Sharma and Yuvraj Singh. Congress leader Shashi Tharoor and Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan have also been involved in personality-rights proceedings.

The increasing number of such cases reflects the growing commercial importance of personal identity in the entertainment, advertising and digital-media industries.

Court to consider legal boundaries

The latest proceedings are significant because the court is examining not only the specific relief sought by Sanon but also broader questions concerning the nature and limits of personality-rights protection.

The legal compilation sought from Sanon’s counsel is expected to assist the court in examining existing judicial approaches and determining the appropriate legal framework for such disputes.

The court has also been asked to consider whether the IPD is the appropriate forum for dealing with the issues raised in the case. Sanon’s counsel maintained that there was no jurisdictional difficulty in the present matter.

The case has been listed for further hearing on October 29, when the court is expected to consider the legal material submitted by the actor’s counsel.

The proceedings could contribute to the continuing judicial discussion over how Indian law should protect a person’s identity in an increasingly digital environment, particularly as artificial intelligence, synthetic media and online commercialisation create new ways of reproducing and exploiting public personas.