Constitutional protection of Personality Rights In The Era of Artificial Intelligence: A Comparative Study Of India, EU And The US

The rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) and synthetic media tools has called into question classical concepts of personality rights, such as the right to one's name, image, voice, etc. In the face of more sophisticated AI-generated content, such as deepfakes and digital clones, this paper analyses how the constitutional and legal protection of personality rights is safeguarded under three jurisdictions—India, the European Union (EU) and the United States. Every jurisdiction is a different model influenced by its constitution, culture, and regulatory evolution. In India, the evolution of personality rights in constitutional and statutory law are largely fledgling, though courts are beginning to discover them through the doctrine of the right to privacy in Article 21. But the absence of laws or AI regulation meant there were large loopholes that allow the misuse of people’s digital identity. By contrast, the EU subscribes to a rights based approach based on dignity and privacy that is enshrined in the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights, and is implemented through mechanisms such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the proposed AI Act. These systems have some fairly substantial protections against unauthorized use of personal identities, including biometric identifiers and likenesses. The US is a bit murkier, accommodating personality rights with robust 1st Amendment protections. The right of publicity, a creature of state law, in fact affords commercial control over one’s persona, but its utility is significantly lessened by inconsistent enforcement and judges’ enforcement due to their veneration of freedom of expression. In the absence of a federal AI law (we have had many AI proposals but no bills passed), and little in the way of state-by-state harmony, AI-generated identity remedies are non-uniform and uncertain. This comparative analysis uncovers that, although the EU is at the forefront of integrated regulatory responses, India and the USA face constitutional dilemmas and legislative fragmentation. The paper calls for a finely balanced legal ecosystem that respects free expression while guaranteeing dignitary and commercial protections against AI-enabled identity manipulation.” It proposes harmonised legislative responses, clarification of the scope of personality rights in the digital sphere, and global cooperation in tackling the challenges that synthetic media technologies present on a transnational level.