2 Dec 2022: UPSC Exam Comprehensive News Analysis

Category: POLITY

1. How do personality rights protect celebrities?

Syllabus: Constitution of India – features and significant provisions 

Prelims: About personality rights

Mains: The protection of Personality rights in India and the key differences between Personality rights and Publicity rights

Context: Recently, the High Court of Delhi passed an order to prevent the unlawful use of Amitabh Bachchan’s name, image and voice and asked to restrain from infringing the personality rights of the actor.

Personality Rights

• Personality rights are the rights of an individual to protect their personality under the right to privacy or property. 
• Personality rights are particularly important to celebrities and well-known personalities because their names, images or voices can be easily misused by various companies to advertise and boost the sales of their products.
• A number of unique personality traits or attributes contribute to the making of a celebrity such as names, nicknames, stage names, images, and other identifiable personal properties and all of these traits must be protected. 
  • Therefore, it has become important for renowned personalities or celebrities to register their names to save their personality rights.
• As a result, personality rights are seen as property rights rather than personal rights.

Personality Rights in India

• At present, there is no statute or law that protects personality rights in India. 
• However, Article 21 of the Constitution of India under the right to privacy and right to publicity makes reference to the protection of personality rights.
• Other statutory provisions protecting personality rights include the Copyright Act, 1957.
  • As per the Act, moral rights are attributed only to authors and performers which include actors, singers, musicians, dancers, etc. 
  • The provisions of the Act mandate that the Authors or the Performers have the right to be given credit or claim authorship of their work and also have a right to restrain others from causing any kind of damage to their work.
• Personality Rights are also accorded some degree of protection under Section 14 of the Indian Trademarks Act, 1999, which puts restrictions on the use of personal names and representations.
• Further, the Delhi High Court in its judgement in Arun Jaitley vs Network Solutions Private Limited and Ors Case (2011) observed that the popularity or fame of an individual will be no different on the internet than in reality. 
  • The court had also stated that the name also falls in the category wherein besides it being a personal name it has also attained distinctive indicia of its own. 
  • Therefore, the name due to its distinctive nature coupled with its popularity in various fields would be treated as a well-known personal name/mark under the Trademark Law which makes sure that the individual gets the right to prevent others from using this name unjustifiably.

Personality rights v/s Publicity rights

• Both Personality rights and Publicity rights differ from each other in various aspects.
• Personality rights mainly consist of two types of rights namely,
  • The Right of Publicity or the right to protect one’s image from being commercially exploited without permission or compensation similar to the use of a trademark.
  • The Right to Privacy or the right to not have one’s personality represented publicly without permission. 
• But, as per various provisions, Publicity rights come under the scope of “tort of passing off”.
  • “Passing off” is when individuals intentionally or unintentionally pass off their goods or services as those belonging to another party. 
  • Such misrepresentation of goods and services impacts the goodwill of a person or business, resulting in financial or reputational damage. 
  • Publicity rights are mainly governed by laws and regulations such as the Trademarks Act 1999 and the Copyright Act 1957.

Impact of false advertisements on consumer rights

• The misuse of well-known personalities to promote false advertisements not just violates the Personality rights of celebrities/well-known personalities but also affects consumer rights.
• Acknowledging the challenge, the Ministry of Consumer Affairs has made a notification to check such misleading endorsements.

Read more about – The new rules to keep advertisements in check

Nut graf: There has been an increase in the number of instances where endorsements have misused the name and fame of celebrities due to the increasing rate of commercialisation of such endorsements because of their huge value and potential. This issue requires immediate intervention by various governing bodies and the judiciary to not just protect the Personality rights of individuals but also the interests of the consumers who get influenced by such ads.

E. Editorials

Category: POLITY

1. Laying the ground to delegitimize the Supreme Court

Syllabus: Separation of Powers Between Various Organs

Mains: Efficiency of collegium System

Context: The Supreme Court objects to the Union Law Minister’s remarks on the collegium system.

Introduction: 

•  The Supreme Court of India objects to the Union Law Minister’s remarks on the collegium system that decides on the appointment of judges. 
• The Union Law Minister recently described the Collegium system as “alien” to the Constitution.
• The apex court asserted that the Centre is bound to “observe the law of the land” and cannot “blame the entire system” for the failure of the National Judicial Appointments Commission Act to pass the constitutional test.
• The Supreme Court also questioned the inaction on the part of the Union government in notifying recommendations made by the collegium.
  • The Union government had returned 19 recommendations to the collegium recently.

Background: 

• The National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC)  was a constitutional body proposed to replace the present Collegium system of appointing judges.
• The NJAC was established by amending the Constitution [Constitution (Ninety-Ninth Amendment) Act, 2014] passed by the parliament in 2014.
• In a 4-1 majority verdict in 2015, the Supreme Court held that both the Constitution (Ninety-ninth Amendment) Act, 2014, and the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC) Act, 2014, were unconstitutional as they would undermine the independence of the judiciary, a key component of the court’s conception of the basic structure of the Constitution.
  • At the same time, the court also acknowledged several problems with the collegium system that required intervention. 
• This led to separate proceedings by the same Bench in which the court appointed a two-member committee to compile suggestions received from the legal community. 
• The government also put its suggestions in writing. After deliberations, viable inputs were to be incorporated into a new.
• The Supreme Court and the government could not find a common ground over these reforms to the Memorandum of Procedure (MoP) for judicial appointments. 
• The Union government also failed to revive the NJAC through Parliament by filling the gaps that the Supreme Court had pointed out in its 2015 judgement.

Undermining legitimacy:

• The process of appointments to the higher judiciary remains a highly contested field. Frontal attacks on the process serve as indicators of democratic backsliding.
• In many countries, the legitimacy of the judiciary is doubted. In Hungary and Poland, in recent times, there have been overt attacks on judicial institutions that have changed the powers and composition of these institutions and turned them into courts conducive to the executive’s policies. 
• In India, the collegium fails to fulfil basic demands of transparency and accountability and remains prone to charges of nepotism. There is also a serious lack of social diversity in the appointments.
• However, the Union government’s comments on the judiciary and recent delays in appointments could eventually lead to the delegitimization of the court. 
• Both shall find a common ground and take up reforms to the collegium system and expedite the creation of a new MoP by incorporating the legitimate concerns of the government and stakeholders at large. 

Read more on the Indian Judiciary.

Nut Graf: Stalling collegium recommendations or forcing modifications in them is perceived as a strategy by the government to continue exercising the informal veto on the judiciary. This will erode confidence in the appointed judges and delegitimize the institution and this doesn’t bode well for democracy.