INTRODUCTION
In a significant ruling that addresses the growing concerns surrounding artificial intelligence, celebrity rights and digital impersonation, the Bombay High Court has granted interim protection to legendary Indian playback singer Asha Bhosle, restraining several AI platforms and online entities from using her name, voice, image, likeness, and other personal identifiers without authorization. The order was passed in a commercial intellectual property suit that highlighted the unauthorized use and replication of Bhosle’s persona through AI-based tools and online platforms.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
The case, titled Asha Bhosle v. Mayk Inc, involved an interim application filed in a commercial IP suit before Justice Arif S. Doctor of the Bombay High Court. Bhosle’s legal team sought to restrain the defendants from using AI technologies or other means to replicate her voice or exploit her personality for commercial or personal gain.
The application alleged a violation not only of Bhosle’s personality rights which include her name, voice, signature, likeness, photographs, and other distinctive attributes but also of her moral rights under Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957. Which states:
“Performer’s right:-
(1)Where any performer appears or engages in any performance, he shall have a special right to be known as the “performer’s right” in relation to such performance.
(2)The performer’s right shall subsist until fifty years from the beginning of the calendar year next following the year in which the performance is made.”
These rights allow performers to protect the integrity of their performances and prevent any distortion or modification that harms their reputation.
Advocates Ankit Lohia, Vikram Trivedi, Rashid Boatwalla, Lipsa Unadkat, and Garima Jain appeared for the plaintiff, while Advocates Charu Shukla and Amishi Sodani represented the defendants.
ALLEGATIONS AND SCOPE OF INFRINGEMENT
The suit centred around the alleged unauthorized use and commercial exploitation of Bhosle’s persona through digital content and merchandise, particularly via platforms that employ AI voice synthesis to imitate her vocal style. The plaintiff contended that these platforms were offering tools that could simulate her voice and performances without consent. Additionally, certain online marketplaces and social media platforms were allegedly selling or promoting content including posters, caricatures, and digital recordings that falsely implied association or endorsement by Bhosle.
Her counsel argued that Bhosle commands immense national and international goodwill and that her voice is instantly recognizable. Decades of work across multiple genres including film music, classical, pop, ghazals, and devotional songs have established her as one of the most influential voices in Indian music. Therefore, any misuse of her persona, particularly in a digital context, not only causes reputational harm but also deprives her of the ability to control how her image and voice are commercially used.
COURT’S OBSERVATIONS AND LEGAL REASONING
Justice Arif S. Doctor, after hearing the plaintiff’s submissions, observed that Bhosle had made a strong prima facie case for the grant of interim protection. In his view, AI tools that enable the replication of a celebrity’s voice or persona without permission constitute a direct infringement of their personality rights / celebrity rights.
The Court stated:
“Making AI tools available to enable the conversion of any voice into that of a celebrity without his/her permission would constitute a violation of the celebrity’s personality rights. Such tools facilitate the unauthorized appropriation and manipulation of a celebrity’s voice, which is a key component of their personal identity and public persona.”
Justice Arif further emphasized that technological misuse of a celebrity’s likeness not only undermines their ability to manage their image but also increases the risk of deceptive or misleading representations, potentially confusing the public or misrepresenting the celebrity’s views and endorsements.
On the basis of materials presented and the conduct attributed to certain defendants in the plaint, the Court found that the use of Bhosle’s personality traits appeared unauthorized. The Court took note of the defendants’ absence in court proceedings despite having received notice, which further strengthened the plaintiff’s case.
The judge held that the balance of convenience favoured Bhosle and that failure to grant interim relief would lead to irreparable injury, especially considering the reputational damage and dilution of control over her identity that could result from continued misuse.
INTERIM ORDERS AND DIRECTIONS
The High Court issued a set of detailed directions to ensure that Bhosle’s rights are protected until the final disposal of the suit. These include:
- Injunction Against Use of Personality Attributes: The defendants are temporarily restrained from using, exploiting, or misappropriating Bhosle’s personality rights in any form. This includes her name, voice, vocal techniques, photographs, image, caricature, likeness, signature, persona, and any other attribute of her identity. The restriction applies to both commercial and personal uses and prohibits any form of passing off of goods or services that falsely imply Bhosle’s endorsement or involvement.
- Takedown of Identified Content: The defendants are directed to remove or disable access to all content, listings, or pages identified in the plaint that feature unauthorized use of Bhosle’s name, likeness, or other protected attributes. This takedown must be completed within one week from the date of the order.
- Future Notifications and Compliance: If Bhosle notifies the defendants of additional infringing content in writing, the defendants must take down such material unless they provide a reasoned objection. This clause ensures ongoing compliance and protection beyond the initially identified URLs.
- Disclosure of Seller and Uploader Information: Upon request, and subject to applicable laws, defendants must share relevant information about sellers or uploaders of infringing content, including names, email addresses, IP logs, registration, and payment details. This information will assist the plaintiff in pursuing further legal remedies or adding new parties to the case.
- Specific URL Removal: The defendants are also instructed to immediately remove the specific URLs cited in the plaint as containing infringing material.
The matter has been listed for the next hearing on October 13, 2025, when the Court will consider the interim application and underlying suit in greater detail.
WIDER LEGAL AND SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
This case brings to the forefront an increasingly urgent legal question: how should the law respond to AI-driven impersonation and the synthetic replication of personal identity? The Bhosle matter is one of several recent lawsuits filed by public figures in India to counter the misuse of their voice or likeness through artificial intelligence and digital platforms.
It is also part of a growing body of jurisprudence where Indian courts have recognized the concept of personality rights / celebrity rights and publicity rights, especially in cases involving celebrities. While the right to publicity is not explicitly codified under Indian law, it has been read into common law principles of privacy, intellectual property, and tort law.
The Court’s reliance on earlier decisions, such as the interim order in Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP and the recognition of personality rights in Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. AishwaryaWorld.com, illustrates an evolving framework for digital personality protection.
The Bombay High Court’s order signals that the legal system is beginning to address these complex issues seriously. With AI generated content becoming more sophisticated and harder to detect, the risk of reputational harm and unauthorized exploitation is growing. This decision may well serve as a reference point for future litigation concerning digital identity, synthetic media, and AI ethics.
For celebrities and performers, the ruling reaffirms the importance of proactively protecting their identity across platforms and technologies. For technology companies and online marketplaces, it serves as a cautionary precedent, highlighting the need to ensure content hosted on their platforms does not infringe the personality rights / celebrity rights of public figures.
CONCLUSION
The Bombay High Court’s interim order in Asha Bhosle v. Mayk Inc is a timely and significant development in the area of personality rights / celebrity rights and AI governance. It recognizes the potential for AI based tools to cause substantial harm when used without consent and affirms the legal right of individuals particularly public figures to control how their identity is used and portrayed in digital spaces.
As artificial intelligence continues to evolve, and as the legal framework around digital identity remains in flux, cases such as this one will play a key role in shaping how courts balance innovation with individual rights.
Link to similar articles: https://jpassociates.co.in/a-r-rahman-copyright-case/
