0.1 What triggered the case

0.1.1 The case arose from a legal dispute involving actor Salman Khan’s personality rights.
0.1.2 It concerns the unauthorised use of a celebrity’s identity, especially through AI-driven platforms.
0.1.3 The case has drawn attention because it lies at the intersection of individual rights, technology, and AI platforms in India.

0.2 Who are “John Doe” defendants

0.2.1 The original suit named 28 defendants, including major technology companies and intermediaries.
0.2.2 These included platforms such as Apple, Google, Meta entities, X, Amazon India, Flipkart, and Telegram.

0.3 How courts understand personality rights

0.3.1 Courts recognise personality rights as protecting the economic value of an individual’s identity.
0.3.2 This protection is particularly relevant for public figures.
0.3.3 Courts have held that unauthorised commercial exploitation of a person’s identity can infringe the right to life.
0.3.4 Personality rights are treated as distinct from statutory intellectual property rights.

0.4 Limits on business and artistic expression

0.4.1 The Constitution guarantees the right to conduct business under Article 19(1)(g).
0.4.2 This right is subject to reasonable restrictions.
0.4.3 Courts have protected artistic expression, provided it does not mislead the public or falsely imply endorsement.
0.4.4 Unauthorised impersonation or misuse of names and images has been restrained by courts.

0.5 Regulatory gaps and role of courts

0.5.1 The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 has been passed, but its enforcement is pending.
0.5.2 This has created regulatory gaps, especially in relation to AI-driven platforms.
0.5.3 Due to limited effectiveness of grievance redressal mechanisms, public figures are approaching High Courts directly.
0.5.4 Courts are increasingly intervening to prevent digital impersonation and misuse of AI-generated content.