Following the footsteps of her grandparents[1] (and later, both of her parents[2]), Aaradhya Bachchan, too, sought interventional relief from Courts against the misappropriation of her personality rights. Back in 2023, she first approached the Delhi High Court to seek injunctive relief from certain bad actors who were circulating morphed images of her, spreading false information containing sensitive and personal details about her, (including health information) and macabre rumors about her alleged passing. She was only 11 years old at the time. At the time, while examining her claims of breach of privacy, misappropriation of her personality rights, and violation of the goodwill vested in the Bachchan family’s name, Justice Hari Shankar noted some of the pitfalls she has faced as a result of her proximity to prominence and granted an interim injunction against the named defendants.
Last week, Justice Bhambhani framed certain issues to examine, while remarking on the widening of the current understanding of personality rights. Namely, “does the reputation attach to the ‘family name’ itself; and, therefore, is a ‘family name’ intellectual property in itself, and if so, to what legal protection is it entitled? Does fake news about a person amount to violation of any intellectual property right, and if so, which one? Can the jurisprudential concept of defamation (slander and libel) or any other form of injury to reputation, be conflated with the jurisprudential concept of intellectual property rights.”
Aside from important concerns like how far does one’s (or one’s family’s) reputation stretch in order to warrant affirmative legal protection, this case also raises an interesting question: does fame by association also warrant protection? At first brush, this is a convincing argument. If someone like Aaradhya Bachchan’s privacy is being invaded for the sole reason of her family’s fame, should it not follow that she is entitled to claim relief available under law due to her family’s notoriety?
The issue of heritability of personality rights has been addressed by courts in the past, though these examinations have been in the context of posthumous claims. In the case Krishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A Saraogi & Ors.,[3] where the late actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s father sought relief from the misappropriation of his son’s personality rights, the Delhi High Court[4] held that:
“The rights ventilated in the plaint – i.e., the right to privacy, the right to publicity and the personality rights which vested in SSR, are not heritable. They died with the death of SSR. The said rights, therefore, did not survive for espousal by the plaintiff.
That apart, even assuming, arguendo, that the impugned film does infract the publicity rights of SSR, or defames him, the infracted right is personal to SSR, and cannot be said to have been inherited by the plaintiff. Besides, the remedy with the plaintiff, if any, would not be to seek an interdiction against further transmission or telecast of the film, but to claim damages, which already stand claimed.
All right infractions, that the plaintiff alleges in the plaint, are not his, but SSR’s. SSR is no more. The rights themselves are not heritable.”
A division bench of the High Court of Madras in Deepa Jayakumar vs. AL Vijay and Ors,[5] too, found that:
“… it is clear that a privacy or reputation earned by a person during his or her life time [sic], extinguishes with his or her death. After the death of a person, the reputation earned cannot be inherited like a movable or immovable property by his or her legal heirs. Such personality right, reputation or privacy enjoyed by a person during his life time comes to an end after his or her life time. Therefore, we are of the opinion that “posthumous right” is not an “alienable right” and the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled for an injunction on the ground that the “posthumous right” of her aunt is sought to be sullied by the respondents/defendants by reason of the release of the film titled as “Thalaivi”.”
These pronouncements are categorical: a claim for personality rights is a personal right and cannot be inherited after the death of the acquirer. Should it then follow that claims predicated upon the reputation earned by one, and their family members, should be limited to the acquirer of repute? Though, during one’s lifetime, certain aspects of one’s personality may be licensed and treated as moveable property.[6] The gross invasion of a minor’s privacy is certainly an important issue for the Court to consider in this case, particularly since the root cause of this limelight can be traced to her family members. Deciding these three issues will require a delicate balancing act by the Court, as over protecting familial reputation may result in a chilling of speech, while under-protecting her interests may lead to an unreasonable outcome.
[1] Titan Industries Ltd. vs M/S Ramkumar Jewellers, C.S. (OS) 2662 of 2011, Amitabh Bachchan vs Rajat Nagi & Ors, C.S. (COMM) 819 of 2022, and Jaya Bachchan vs. Bollywood Bubble Television & Ors., CS (COMM) 1194 of 2025.
[2] Aishwarya Rai Bachchan vs. Aishwaryaworld.com & Ors., CS (COMM) 956 of 2025, and Abhishek Bachchan vs. The Bollywood Tee Shop and Ors., CS (COMM) 960 of 2025.
[3] C.S. (COMM) 187 of 2021.
[4] Krishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A Saraogi & Ors., C.S. (COMM) 187 of 2021.
[5] OSA No. 75 of 2020.
[6] See generally, D.M. Entertainment Private Limited vs. Baby Gift House & Ors., CS(OS) 893/2002.
English
Chinese (Simplified)
Japanese