I. INTRODUCTION
The rise of generative artificial intelligence has brought about a reality once thought to be limited to science fiction: the digital resurrection of deceased individuals. From AI-generated voice replicas of deceased musicians to "grief-tech" chatbots that mimic a dead person's text messages, technology now enables the recreation of a person’s identity, voice, appearance, and even a simulated form of consciousness after their death. This development raises significant legal and ethical concerns that Indian law is only just beginning to address. At the heart of this issue is the conflict between technological advancement and legal recognition of personhood: once someone passes away, do their identity, dignity, and data remain legally protected? One question stands out: who gets to decide how a digital version of someone is used after they are gone. Yet another issue follows - false portrayals using artificial intelligence can hurt reputations beyond death. The country’s present system pulls from constitutional rights, newer criminal codes like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita of 2023, data rules passed the same year, alongside older copyright ideas. Still, answers remain scattered, thin, uneven across these sources. A closer look shows how pieces fail to connect where they matter most. Missing parts demand new laws shaped by today's reality, not old assumptions.
1 An Example of illustration among several from a range of popular media reporting on the proliferation of AI-voice clones and ‘grief-tech’ chatbots. Based on reports onthe HereAfter AI and StoryFile platforms(2022-8), and similar examples available across news outlets worldwide. 2025) see also Phys.org, ‘AI Afterlife: A Real Option and Legal Minefield’, (February 2026) Accessed 16 April 2026.
2 Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) V. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 (Nine-judge Constitution -Bench), para 189 (Chandrachud J): ‘Informational privacy is one aspect of right to privacy. The Dangers to privacy in an age of information in the hands of the State can be just as easily be posed by non- State actors too.,”. The latter goes both ways, takes on an aggressive tone, etc. A ‘non’ would be preferable here, but the expression, in the context of the sentence, is fine.”
II. CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS: POST-MORTEM PRIVACY AND
DIGNITY
2.1 The Puttaswamy Framework
The fundamental basis for any discussion about digital resurrection is the Supreme Court’s decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) In a 2017 ruling, a group of nine Supreme Court judges agreed that privacy belongs among the core rights protected by the Indian Constitution under Articles 14, 19, and 21. What people do with personal data - its gathering, storage, use - is something individuals should have authority over, according to the court's view on informational privacy. Even though Article 21 mainly covers those still alive, courts have recognized lasting dignity through family ties. Feelings and reputation left behind matter - the respect owed doesn’t stop when life ends.
2.2 Post Mortem Privacy As A Limited Right
Post-Puttaswamy rulings have affirmed that dignity does not disappear upon death. Life carries dignity, says the top court in Selvi versus Karnataka, 2010, page 263 of volume seven SCC. That sense of worth touches everyone left behind when someone dies. Because of this truth, judges now block release of autopsy photos without permission. Shared records after death face limits too. Privacy matters, rooted in Articles 21 and 19(1)(a), shape these boundaries. Any intrusion into the privacy of a deceased person must satisfy a three-part proportionality test established in the post-Puttaswamy framework:
1. Legality - the action must have a legal basis
2. What matters is purpose - a reason that makes sense when you stop to think about it
3. Whatever works with least intrusion should happen first
3 R. Rajagopal @ R. R. Gopal and Anr. V. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (1994) 6 SCC 632, paras 26: A citizen has a right to secure the privacy of his own, his family, his marriage, his procreation, Motherhood, child-bearing and education etc.”>motherhood, child-bearng and education among other matters.”
4 Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263, para 190 (Dr. Singhvi): so also the right to privacy, which is implicit in a guarantee of life and personal liberty would have to be seen as. Constituting a distinct fundamental right inherent within Article 21 of the Constitution, that encompasses the safeguard of the dignity Refers to the individual.
When bringing someone back digitally, every AI version of a person who has passed away - be it for business, shows, or helping those left behind - needs to hit that bar. Without clear permission from the person who passed away - or approval from their legal heirs - copying them raises legal doubts. So far, Indian courts haven’t ruled on whether Article 21 applies to AI versions of people who have died - that question sits untouched as of May 2026. Though dignity became part of life under Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR 1978 SC 597), courts in India still haven’t examined how that applies when artificial intelligence creates personal identities.
III. PERSONALITY RIGHTS AND DEEPFAKE REGULATION
3.1 Judicial Acknowledgment of Individual Identity Rights
Indian courts have built a strong common law system to protect personality rights against misuse by AI, mainly based on Article 21 of the Constitution. One person’s say over how private details get shared counts as life protection, ruled the judges. When press freedom bumps into personal space, balance matters most. That idea took shape through a case in Tamil Nadu back in nineteen ninety four. Information about someone’s life stays theirs unless proven otherwise. The top court made clear that dignity includes deciding what stories go public. The Delhi High Court and Bombay High Court have expanded this understanding, recognizing that personality rights go beyond names and images to include "extended persona elements" such as voice, mannerisms, dialogue delivery, and catchphrases. Key recent cases include:
1. The Anil Kapoor Case (Delhi High Court, 2023): The court banned the unauthorized use of a living actor's likeness, AI-generated deepfakes and catchphrases, granting broad injunctive relief to prevent digital misuse.
5 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597, para 56 (Bhagwati J): The word“8[..]may also be nullified by an expression in language.”The meaning of ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is so wide that it includes different rights which are - Define to be the personal liberty of man.”
6 Delhi High Court Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India and Others CS(COMM) 652/2023, Order Dated 20 September 2023: The use of the plaintiff‘s photograph, logo, voice and character is constituted as infringing upon his personal rights.
2. The Aishwarya Rai Bachchan Case (Delhi High Court, 2023): The court ruled that unauthorized AI manipulation is a clear violation and issued temporary injunctions against generative AI and face-morphing technologies to prevent harm to reputation.
3. The Suniel Shetty Case (Bombay High Court): The court granted an ex-parte injunction, affirming that AI-generated impersonations infringe on the commercial value of a persona and violate Article 21 rights.
IV. DEFAMATION OF DECEASED PERSONS UNDER THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023
4.1 Statutory Framework
On December 25, 2023, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 gained presidential approval. This law took the place of the Indian Penal Code from 1860. Now it forms the core legal structure dealing with defamation across India. While old rules faded, this one steps in with updated authority. Its presence reshapes how such cases move through courts. Section 356 BNS deals with criminal defamation, largely following the structure of Section 499 IPC while updating procedural aspects. A defamation complaint under Section 356 BNS must typically be filed by the aggrieved person themselves. Exceptions apply to children, individuals with intellectual disabilities, or those bound by local customs - in such cases, third-party complaints are allowed with the court's approval .
4.2 The Dead Person Issue
The biggest limitation of Section 356 BNS for digital resurrection scenarios is the requirement that the complaint be made by the "aggrieved person." A dead person can’t lodge a claim, yet nothing in the law clearly gives relatives or appointed agents permission to act instead.
7 Delhi High Court in Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Raj Comics and Others CS(COMM) 674/ Order 2023: ‘It appears prima facie [‘wrongful use of the defendant‘s image by the AI system in question’. Against the infringement of her personality rights and Article 21 rights.
8 Bombay High Court in Suniel Shetty v. Unknown Defendants, ex-parte injunction (2023): “AI- Generated impersonations infringe on the commercial value of a persona or right of publicity and the constitutional. “ample protection of the rights. Guarantee of dignity under Article 21.
This leads to a major legal gap: if an AI system creates a deepfake video of a deceased political leader making inflammatory statements or builds a chatbot impersonating a deceased person to spread misinformation, the deceased's family has no clear criminal remedy under Section 356 BNS. A ruling in Gurumukh Rao versus the State of Odisha, decided in 2013, narrowed how far defamation safeguards stretch after death - so now digital replicas hover without clear legal footing. The BNSS sets specific procedural rules for filing a complaint:
1. Section 220 BNSS: For offences under Section 85 BNS, cognizance requires a police report or complaint from the aggrieved person or specific relatives (parents, siblings, or uncle/aunt). Others related by blood, marriage, or adoption need court approval.
2. Section 221 BNSS: For offences under Section 67 BNS involving marital relationships, the court requires a complaint from the wife.
3. Someone upset by a defamatory act must file the complaint under Section 356 BNS, though rare cases can come from others if the court agrees.
V. THE DIGITAL PERSONAL DATA PROTECTION ACT, 2023:
POSTHUMOUS DATA RIGHTS
5.1 Section 14: The Right to Nominate
Section 14 Dpdpa brings India its initial legal structure for data rights after death via the DPDP Act, 2023. Under Section 14(1), a Data Principal (a living individual) may name a person to exercise their data protection rights if they die or become incapacitated. This creates a limited fiduciary-like role rather than an inheritable property right.
11 Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (Act No. 22 of 2023), s 14(1): A Data Principal may, in such manner as he may prescribe, nominate any other person who shall, in the event of death or incapacity of the Data Principal, have all the rights of the Data
12 Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 (Act No. 22 of 2023), s 14(2): The rights of a Data{ If you believe your rights have been or are likely to be infringed you may file a complaint with a Grievance Officer. When a Principal as provided by this Act shall, by reason of death or incapacitation of such Data Principal shall be exercised by the nominee of such Data Principal.
Critical Gaps in the DPDP Framework
Though Section 14 of the DPDP Act looks ahead, problems show up once you test it on digital resurrection. Its design falters under real-world use despite early promise. The gaps become clear when applied beyond theory.
VI. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DIMENSIONS
6.1 Copyright and AI-Generated Content
A person must make something for it to count under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Machines or systems cannot claim that role. Only human effort qualifies here. The law draws a clear line at who can create. What matters is origin - born from thought, not code. Out here, computer-made voices or digital copies probably do not get copyright protection in India. That sets off a chain reaction - when an AI firm builds software that brings someone back digitally, it might not hold rights, while the dead person’s family cannot claim ownership either, so what’s left floats without clear rules.
Passing Off and Tort Liability
In the absence of specific laws, tort law, especially the tort of passing off, can offer some legal help. To claim this, the plaintiff must show that there was goodwill, misrepresentation using AI, and damage caused. The case R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu discussed the balance between free speech and reputation, which is relevant here: AI-generated impersonation of a deceased person for commercial gain could be considered as misrepresentation of the deceased's endorsement or association.
13 Information Technology Act 2000 (Act No. 21 of 2000), s 43A No. 21 of 2000 “Where a body corporate, Having, acquiring, using, storing, or receiving in a computer any sensitive personal data or information; Resources it owns, controls, or operates that is negligent in establishing and maintaining Reasonable security practices and procedures and the commission of the wrongful loss or wrongful damage by the provider. Without prejudice to any other right available to any person, such body corporate shall be liable to pay damages by way of Compared to the one who will be affected by it.”
14 Copyright Act 1957 (Act No 14 of 1957), s 13:“Subject to the provisions of this section and apart from other provisions, copyright shall subsist througholdt India, the following twenty-two classes. Of works, that is, a (a) original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works; (b) (c) sound recordings.”, (b) cinematograph films; and (c) sound recordings”.
VII. ETHICAL DIMENSIONS AND THE CONSENT DEFICIT
The main ethical issue with digital resurrection is the lack of consent. The deceased cannot consent to their own recreation. Indian constitutional law, based on autonomy as seen in Puttaswamy, considers informed consent a key part of informational privacy. The right to control one's own narrative, including the right to be forgotten, is a part of this autonomy. What adds more difficulty is how incomplete data can lead AI tools to mimic words or behaviors they would likely never have shown, risking damage to their image after death while hurting those left behind emotionally. A legal example involving Bloomberg Television Production Services India Private Limited, referenced along with R. Rajagopal, reveals reputation rights tied to dignity under Article 21 need careful weighing against public expression - especially when media projects enter the picture.
VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS AND LEGISLATIVE GAPS
The following legislative actions are needed urgently:
1. Amendment to the BNS, 2023: Section 356 should be changed to allow legal heirs or court-appointed representatives to file defamation complaints on behalf of deceased persons, especially in cases involving AI-generated impersonation or deepfake defamation.
2. Should someone pass without naming a nominee, their legal heirs ought to inherit data rights automatically - that change needs adding to Section 14 of the DPDP Act, 2023. When personal details feed artificial intelligence systems during training, it counts as data usage, something the law must clearly state.
3. A fresh legal path opens when tech mimics those who’ve passed. One rule stands clear - India must shape its own framework, like what emerged in California with AB 602 and AB 1836.
15 The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors. (2011) 8 SCC 781, para 27: “Copyright subsists in original works which are the product of the author‘s skill, stead, by ‘judgmentand ‘labour,’ there is meant...
16 Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, Advisory on Deepfakes(26 November8). 2023):“Intermediaries must take it down in 36 hours or less after getting a” Commissioned the report to help (1) tackle this, “unsuitable photo especially [on] their sites” and (2) “make sure users didn‘t upload this to their sites.
4. Amendment to the Indian Succession Act, 1865: The Act should be updated to recognize "digital personality rights" as part of inheritable property, allowing estates to control and license AI recreations.
5. One step ahead, turn the existing MEITY advisory into official rules under the IT Act of 2000. Not just guidance anymore - make it law that demands swift removal of deepfakes. When fake digital likenesses appear without consent, those who build the AI tools must answer.
IX. CONCLUSION
Right now, bringing someone back digitally using artificial intelligence touches privacy rights, personal respect, ownership of creative work, yet also steps into criminal concerns. Still, India does not have one clear law handling all that ground. The legal idea built on Puttaswamy speaks about dignity and private life, though never faced court after a person has died. Fresh laws like BNS, 2023 along with BNSS, 2023 give tools against false statements or pretending to be someone else, however procedures skip shielding those who are gone. There exists Section 14 under the DPDP Act - starting point yes, flawed too, since people must act to join plus nothing says how AI learns from old data. Rules lag behind what machines already do. So long as they trail, Indians who’ve passed stay open to losing their very selves - copied whole by code unaware where to pause.
Disclaimer
This article is published by CLEAR LAW (clearlaw.online) strictly for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, legal opinion, or any form of professional counsel, and must not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a qualified legal practitioner. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as creating a lawyer-client relationship between the reader and the author, publisher, or CLEAR LAW (clearlaw.online).
All views, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and represent independent academic analysis. CLEAR LAW (clearlaw.online) does not endorse, verify, or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the content, and expressly disclaims any responsibility for the same.
While reasonable efforts are made to ensure that the information presented is accurate and up to date, no warranties or representations, express or implied, are made regarding its correctness, adequacy, or applicability to any specific factual or legal situation. Laws, regulations, and judicial interpretations are subject to change, and the content may not reflect the most current legal developments.
To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, CLEAR LAW (clearlaw.online), the author, editors, and publisher disclaim all liability for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or special damages arising out of or in connection with the use of, or reliance upon, this article.
Readers are strongly advised to seek independent legal advice from a qualified professional before making any decisions or taking any action based on the contents of this article. Reliance on any information provided in this article is strictly at the reader's own risk.
By accessing and using this article, the reader expressly agrees to the terms of this disclaimer.