India, Sept. 16 -- In September, actress Aishwarya Rai Bachchan approached the Delhi High Court (HC) seeking protection of her personality rights. In her petition, she alleged that several websites, e-commerce platforms, and YouTube channels were misusing her name, likeness, image, and even voice without authorisation. The alleged violations included the sale of unauthorised merchandise such as posters and mugs, the operation of impersonating chatbots, and the circulation of AI-generated deepfakes that distorted her persona. The court granted interim relief, restraining these platforms from continuing such activities. At first blush, this may appear to be just another "celebrity rights" dispute. However, it raises an important feminist question: Whose bodies, voices, and identities are considered available for use, and who has the autonomy to resist such appropriation? The unauthorised exploitation of Rai's image is not gender-neutral. Women celebrities, far more than men, face the indignity of their likenesses being commodified, distorted, or sexualised without consent. Actresses Alia Bhatt, Rashmika Mandanna, and Kajol have all been the victims of deepfake videos in the last two years, pointing to the systematic pattern of this violation. What underpins this pattern is entitlement: Because women are already visible in the public sphere, there is a cultural assumption that people are entitled to their images for further use, whether in indecent memes, doctored photos, or merchandise. This entitlement is not trivial. It reflects a patriarchal logic where women's bodies are treated as public property, stripped of dignity and objectified. In Rai's case, the harm is not confined to commerce. While her endorsement rights do generate revenue, unauthorised advertisements and online endorsements deprive her of that income. However, more troublingly, the unauthorised use of her persona (especially in sexually suggestive ways) undermines her fundamental right to live with dignity. Indian courts, by recognising personality rights as grounded in Article 21's guarantee of privacy and dignity, are beginning to challenge this entitlement in law. Judicial decisions from ICC Development v. Arvee Enterprises to Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, and now Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld, have clarified that personality rights contain two distinct but overlapping dimensions - publicity rights and privacy rights. Publicity rights (commercial) protect one's name, likeness, and image from unauthorised commercial exploitation. Courts treat this as a passing off harm, and thus prevent misrepresentation that a celebrity has (falsely) endorsed or sponsored a product. Privacy rights, grounded in Constitutional law, protect one's image and persona from violation, humiliation, or misuse, grounded in the right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. What connects both is autonomy. When Rai consents to appear in a film, advertisement, or public campaign, she exercises her choice to shape her public identity. She chooses what to put out in the public sphere. When third parties impersonate that identity (whether by printing her face on mugs or creating AI chatbots in her likeness), they erase her agency and autonomy about her public image. The law must respond by affirming that autonomy, not unauthorised entitlement, is the anchor of personality rights. Critics argue that strong personality rights can curtail free expression. But Indian courts have drawn a clear line. Free speech protects information, news reporting, satire, parody, and criticism of public figures. It does not protect the sale of unauthorised merchandise, impersonation, or deepfake pornography. The Delhi HC in the Anil Kapoor judgment stressed that while parody and criticism enrich public discourse, unauthorised use of a celebrity's name, voice, dialogues, or images for commercial purposes could not be permitted. The Rai case carries that reasoning forward into the age of AI, where new technologies make identity theft easier and more damaging. India lacks a codified law on personality rights, relying instead on other intellectual property laws and principles, constitutional interpretation, and piecemeal judicial precedent. The Rai case shows why a legislative framework is urgent. There is a need to define personality rights to include name, likeness, voice, signature, and digital impersonations. However, any such law should codify exceptions for news, parody, and criticism to safeguard free speech. Further, it is important to recognise that personality rights are not privileges of celebrities alone. Ordinary citizens, especially women, are increasingly targeted through deepfakes and revenge pornography. Thus, criminal law should also catch up to what can essentially be considered as cyber sexual harassment and other forms of cyber-crimes. Ultimately, the Rai case is not only about protecting endorsement contracts. It is about reclaiming dignity and autonomy in an age where technology makes it easy to strip both away. For women in particular, who bear the brunt of this, personality rights are a legal tool to resist entitlement and reassert their autonomy to their images, voices, and bodies....