From Consent to Control: Fragmented Consent in AI Voice…
The Bombay High Court ruled that unauthorized AI voice cloning of singer Asha Bhosle constitutes an invasion of personality rights and must be stopped
- Incident date
- Aug 2026
- Target
- Asha Bhosle
The Bombay High Court recently ruled that the unauthorized use of artificial intelligence to replicate the voice of singer Asha Bhosle constitutes a clear invasion of personality rights. The court mandated that such practices must cease and ordered that the offenders responsible for the unauthorized cloning be identified.
What happened
The legal action, Asha Bhosle v. Mayk Inc, centered on the use of AI technology to create a digital clone of the singer’s voice without her authorization. Rather than focusing on the complexities of consent within the AI training process, the court’s decision was grounded in personality right theory and moral rights under Section 38-B. The court concluded that the AI-generated voice cloning represented an unlicensed usage of the plaintiff’s identity and performance.
This ruling aligns with a broader trend in Indian courts between 2024 and 2026, which have acted to protect celebrities from voice appropriation. Previous cases, such as those involving Arijit Singh and Anil Kapoor, established that a person’s voice, name, and image are essential aspects of their personality that cannot be infringed upon. The current legal landscape recognizes that voice is no longer merely a form of oral evidence, but an indispensable part of an individual's right to privacy and personality.
Legal analysts note that these cases highlight a structural "consent gap" in AI technology. Because AI models analyze speech patterns and accents to generate synthetic outputs, traditional notions of consent often fail to address the realities of model training and irreversible downstream uses. While existing laws like the Information Technology Act penalize traditional identity theft, they often struggle to cover the creation of new synthetic identities. As a result, the judiciary is increasingly shifting toward regulating the processes of AI creation rather than just the final content, holding voice conversion services liable for the clones produced by their software.