by On January 21, 2026, Bollywood superstar Salman Khan was served a notice by the Delhi High Court in a case that has quickly become one of the most significant legal confrontations in India’s entertainment and technology sectors. The matter revolves around Salman Khan’s attempt to protect his personality and publicity rights — including his name, image, and voice — from unauthorized commercial use, especially in the emerging world of artificial intelligence (AI).
The notice was issued in response to a plea filed by a China‑based AI voice‑generation platform, which is challenging a previous interim order of the High Court that had granted Salman a measure of legal protection. The court has asked Khan to file his response within four weeks, with the next hearing scheduled for February 27, 2026.
This article provides a deep dive into the case — its background, legal context, technological implications, industry impact, and what it means for celebrity rights in an AI‑driven era.
Understanding Personality and Publicity Rights: The Legal Foundation
At its core, the Salman Khan case is about personality rights, also known as publicity rights — a concept rooted in both common law and intellectual property principles. These rights give individuals, especially public figures, control over the commercial exploitation of their identity. This includes:
- Name
- Image
- Voice
- Likeness
- Signature phrases or mannerisms
In legal terms, personality rights are justified on two main grounds:
- Privacy: Protection against unauthorized exploitation of personal attributes.
- Commercial Interest: Ensuring that the economic benefits generated from a person’s public persona are not appropriated by others without consent.
Unlike copyright or trademark — which are statutory rights under specific laws — personality rights in India currently rely on a combination of tort law, right to privacy, and overlapping legal doctrines. Therefore, judicial interpretation plays a crucial role. This evolving jurisprudence is especially important in the digital age, where technological tools like deepfakes and AI voice cloning can create highly realistic versions of public figures.
The Genesis of the Lahore High Court Legal Battle
The matter traces back to December 2025, when Salman Khan approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection against the unauthorized use of his personal attributes. In his petition, he alleged that numerous entities — including unidentified persons and digital platforms — were exploiting his name, photographs, voice, likeness, dialogues, and mannerisms without consent for commercial gain.
On December 11, 2025, the High Court granted an interim order in favour of Salman Khan. The order:
- restrained the use of Salman’s voice, image, and identity
- directed social media intermediaries and platforms to take action against infringing content
- warned that the court would issue stay orders against any entity that used Salman’s personal attributes for commercial purposes without authorization.
This interim relief marked a significant judicial stance in favour of protecting public figures against digital misuse. In the order, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora emphasized that any unauthorised commercial exploitation not only infringed personality rights but also misled the public and allowed third parties to profit unfairly from Salman’s image.
The China‑Based AI Platform: A Challenge to the Court’s Order
The central twist in this legal narrative is the petition filed by a China‑based AI voice‑generation platform — a company whose business model involves creating voice models through artificial intelligence technology. Rather than directly infringing on Salman’s rights, their argument revolves around the assertion that the interim order unfairly restricts their ability to operate their business.
The AI platform’s plea requests the High Court to quash the interim injunction barring use of Salman’s voice and likeness, asserting that such restrictions impede technological innovation and their commercial operations. Although the full submissions of the platform are not public, the core challenge suggests that AI‑generated content should be permissible if it clearly discloses its artificial nature and does not mislead consumers into thinking the genuine celebrity endorsed the product or service.
In response, the High Court has chosen not to immediately lift the interim order. Instead, it has issued a notice to Salman Khan, giving him four weeks to formally respond to the petition — a procedural step that ensures both parties have an opportunity to present their arguments before the matter advances.
Why This Case Matters: The Intersection of AI and Human Rights
What sets this case apart from traditional celebrity rights disputes is the technology dimension — especially the involvement of AI voice generation. Modern AI tools are capable of producing voice outputs that can sound strikingly like real individuals, creating realistic simulations that can be used in commercials, movies, ads, or user applications.
This development raises several fundamental questions:
1. Who Owns a Voice in the AI Era?
Traditionally, voice and likeness protection were concerns primarily under privacy or publicity right frameworks. However, AI changes the equation:
- AI models can synthesize human voices with limited original recordings.
- Replication leads to highly realistic outputs that can deceive listeners into believing a real person is speaking.
- AI can produce speech in new contexts, creating ethical and legal dilemmas.
The Salman Khan case is one of the first major tests in India where courts will have to define how personality rights extend into AI‑generated content. The outcome could influence future legal standards across sectors, especially entertainment, media, advertising, and technology.
2. Balancing Innovation and Rights Protection
Technology companies argue that stringent restrictions could stifle innovation — especially for startups working in voice synthesis, virtual assistants, and entertainment applications. They suggest that AI should be allowed to replicate voices as long as appropriate disclosures are made and usage does not mislead consumers.
In contrast, rights advocates emphasize that without robust protection, individuals risk losing control over their persona. They argue that unrestricted AI replication undermines the value of personality rights and could lead to widespread misuse — such as:
- Deepfake advertisements
- Fraudulent endorsements
- Unauthorized commercial exploitation of voice and image
Finding the balance between advancing technology and protecting human dignity and economic rights is now at the forefront of contemporary legal debate.
Where the Law Stands in India
In India, personality and publicity rights are recognized through judicial interpretations in various cases. Notable public figures — including movie stars like Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and others — have sought similar protections in recent years.
However, India currently lacks a codified, specific statute that explicitly governs personality rights in the face of digital replication technologies. Instead, Indian courts have drawn on:
- The right to privacy under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution
- Common law tort principles
- Intellectual property doctrines where applicable
The absence of clear legislation means that cases like Salman Khan’s will play a pivotal role in shaping future jurisprudence.
Potential Legal Arguments: What Both Sides May Present
Although the detailed legal filings are not public, based on established principles and media reports, here’s how the arguments might unfold:
Salman Khan’s Likely Legal Position
Salman’s legal team will likely argue that:
- Personality rights are protected under Indian law, and the interim order rightly safeguards his identity against misuse.
- AI voice cloning creates a direct threat to his right to control his persona and could mislead audiences if not regulated.
- The use of his voice or likeness by third parties — especially for commercial gain — without consent violates his basic rights and misappropriates his economic interests.
- Given the unprecedented reach of AI platforms, courts must take a firm stance to prevent irreversible harm.
AI Platform’s Likely Legal Position
The China‑based AI company might argue that:
- The interim order goes beyond protecting celebrity rights and instead curtails legitimate business activity.
- If AI content is clearly marked as AI‑generated and does not falsely imply endorsement, there should be no violation of personality rights.
- Legal norms should evolve to accommodate technological innovation rather than impose blanket restrictions.
- The interim order is too broad and should be narrowed or vacated.
The court will need to strike a balance between these competing interests.
Implications for the Entertainment and Tech Industries
For Celebrities and Public Figures
A definitive ruling clarifying personality rights — particularly in relation to AI — could empower celebrities to:
- Protect their brand value more effectively
- License their image and voice for controlled usage
- Prevent unauthorized impersonations in the digital economy
It would also serve as a legal precedent for future litigation involving deepfakes, AI‑generated endorsements, and digital impersonation.
For AI and Technology Companies
Technology companies will be watching this case closely. A restrictive ruling could mean:
- Stronger compliance requirements
- Need for explicit permissions from public figures
- Clear industry standards for transparent disclosures
Conversely, a ruling that favors technology interests could signal a more flexible framework for innovation.
For Regulators and Policymakers
This case highlights the urgent need for:
- Comprehensive legislation covering personality rights in the digital age
- Guidelines on the ethical use of AI for reproducing human attributes
- Consumer protection laws that address AI impersonations
A Broader Cultural and Ethical Debate
Beyond legal technicalities, the case also touches on deeper societal issues, such as:
The Value of Human Identity
In an era where AI can mimic voices and faces, the question arises: What does it mean to preserve human identity? If an AI‑generated voice becomes indistinguishable from the real one, society must confront ethical implications of authenticity and human dignity.
Celebrity Culture and Commercialization
Bollywood stars like Salman Khan have significant cultural influence. Protecting their personalities is not just about economics — it’s about upholding the integrity of cultural icons in a time when technology blurs reality and imitation.
Digital Responsibility
Consumers, platforms, and tech companies all share responsibility in how AI is deployed. Clear rules will help ensure that innovation does not come at the cost of exploitation or deception.
What’s Next? The February 27 Hearing and Beyond
The High Court has scheduled the next hearing for February 27, 2026, where both sides will present their detailed arguments. In the meantime:
- Salman Khan’s legal team will prepare a comprehensive response to the AI platform’s petition.
- The court will evaluate whether the interim order should stay in place, be modified, or be overturned.
- Legal experts expect discussions to extend beyond this single case, potentially resulting in broader legal principles.
Observers from legal, entertainment, and technology sectors agree that this case could set an important precedent in Indian law — influencing how courts interpret personality rights in the context of rapidly advancing AI technologies.
Conclusion: A Turning Point for Celebrity Rights in the Digital Age
The notice issued by the Delhi High Court to Salman Khan in the personality rights case underscores a pivotal moment in the intersection of law, technology, and entertainment. It reflects the evolving challenges posed by AI and the need for the legal system to adapt to new realities where voice and image are easily replicable and monetizable.
As the case unfolds in the coming weeks, all eyes will be on the Delhi High Court to see how it balances celebrity rights, ethical concerns, and technological innovation. What starts as a specific dispute over one star’s identity could well shape the future of how society protects human persona in an increasingly digitized world.
