Introduction:
As artificial intelligence evolves, it is no longer confined to automating tasks or solving problems, it is increasingly encroaching upon deeply human experiences: memory, grief, and mortality. One of the most striking examples of this is digital resurrection, where technologies like deepfakes, AI chatbots, and holography are used to recreate the voice, image, or likeness of the deceased.
These simulations can mimic personality, speech patterns, and appearance with unsettling accuracy. For some, they offer a form of solace, a way to preserve memory or reconnect with lost closed ones. But human memory is not static; it evolves, fades, and adapts over time. When we preserve someone artificially, we may risk distorting that organic process of remembrance, holding onto a version that is programmed, not personal.
This raises urgent ethical, psychological, and legal questions. Can code truly capture the depth of a human life? Should it even try? And what rights, if any, do the dead have in such digital afterlives?
In India, the legal framework remains largely silent on digital resurrection. This blog explores how existing laws may apply, from data privacy to consent and identity misuse, and whether new legislation is needed to protect the dignity of both the deceased and the living.
What is Digital Resurrection?
Digital resurrection is the use of AI to recreate a deceased person’s likeness, voice, or personality using their digital traces, photos, texts, videos, voice notes, and online activity. These recreations can appear as chatbots, holograms, virtual avatars, or even humanoid robots that mimic how the person spoke, moved, or behaved in real life.
The aim? To allow continued interaction or presence after death, whether for emotional closure, legacy preservation, or even commercial use.
While it’s a technological leap in human-AI interaction, it also opens a Pandora’s box of legal and ethical concerns: Did the person consent? Who owns their digital identity? What if emotional harm is caused?
In India, where digital rights are still finding legal footing, such questions remain largely unanswered, making this an urgent area for legal discussion.
Current Legal Landscape in India
Despite the rapid rise of technologies enabling digital resurrection, India currently lacks any
specific legislation that addresses posthumous digital rights, including the use of a deceased
person’s likeness, voice, or personality through AI.
However, a few existing legal frameworks and judicial interpretations may offer partial guidance:
Do Posthumous Rights Exist in India?
No law in India currently explicitly talks about your rights over your image, voice, or data after you’ve passed away. This makes digital resurrection a grey zone, especially when tech recreates people without family consent or ethical oversight.
The Right to Privacy — Puttaswamy Judgment (2017)
India’s Supreme Court declared privacy a fundamental right under Article 21. The catch? It applies only to the living. But some legal thinkers argue that informational privacy and autonomy shouldn’t just vanish after death, especially when digital data is being used without consent.
Article 21 — Dignity Doesn’t Die with You
In the Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) case, the court ruled that the right to dignity extends even after death. While it wasn’t about technology, it sets an important tone, if dignity matters in how we handle a dead body, shouldn’t it matter in how we recreate someone digitally?
IT Act, 2000 — Data Protection Gaps
Sections like 43A (data security) and 72 (privacy breach) offer protections, but again, they focus on living individuals. So if a company uses someone’s old texts, videos, or photos to build an AI version, the law doesn’t clearly say it’s wrong if that person is no longer alive.
Copyright Act, 1957 — Works, Not Identity
If someone used your voice recordings, scripts, or videos, it might fall under copyright law, especially if those were creative works. But your face, tone, or personality? That’s not protected unless it’s tied to something copyrighted. So there’s still a big gap when it comes to just you being you.
So… What Now?
To sum it up: India doesn’t have a law that directly tackles digital resurrection or posthumous personality rights. What we have are bits and pieces, privacy laws, copyright rules, and a few powerful court judgments, but no cohesive protection for the dead in the digital world.
Comparative Jurisprudence: How Other Countries Tackle Digital Resurrection
While India lacks clear legal frameworks around digital resurrection, other jurisdictions offer valuable insights:
United States
There’s no specific law on digital resurrection, but states like California extend Right of Publicity beyond death, letting heirs control the use of a deceased person’s likeness. Emotional distress torts may also apply in misuse cases. However, protection is patchy and inconsistent.
South Korea
The viral VR documentary “Meeting You”, where a mother reunited with her deceased daughter virtually, sparked ethical debates. While there are no direct laws, South Korea’s strict Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) could offer indirect safeguards.
European Union
The GDPR doesn’t cover the dead, but some member states (like France) allow individuals to leave digital death directives. Consent and data minimisation principles under GDPR still influence discussions on digital legacy and AI simulations.
China
China has deployed digital resurrection tech at memorials, but individual control remains limited. Its new Personal Information Protection Law focuses on data rights, yet posthumous digital identity remains largely unregulated.
Relevant Sections & Legal Gaps
Although digital resurrection is a growing tech phenomenon, the legal framework hasn’t evolved at the same pace. Several existing laws offer some direction, but gaps remain:
Article 21
– Right to Privacy Recognised as a fundamental right (Puttaswamy v. Union of India, 2017), but its posthumous applicability is unclear. Digital resurrection tests the extent to which dignity and privacy survive death.
IT Act, 2000 – Sections 43A & 72
Offer safeguards around unauthorised data use and disclosure, but primarily for the living. There’s no framework for posthumous data consent, storage, or misuse in AI-based recreations.
IPC – Sections 499 & 292
Can address defamation or obscenity if a digital replica harms reputation or depicts the person disrespectfully. However, they kick in only after significant harm, not for emotional distress or ethical misuse.
IPR & Personality Rights
Courts have occasionally upheld personality rights (e.g., ICC v. Arvee), but there’s no codified publicity right, especially not post-death. Likeness or voice cloning operates in a legal grey zone.
Consumer Protection Act, 2019
If such AI-based services are offered commercially, consent lapses, manipulation, or mental harm could trigger consumer complaints. Still, these would be case-specific and reactive.
Key Legal Gaps
• No posthumous data protection law
• No clear ownership of digital identity after death
• No consent framework for AI-based recreations
• No remedy for emotional harm caused to families
• No regulation over voice cloning or deepfake tech in memorial settings
Here’s a structured table summarising the legal framework and gaps related to digital resurrection in India and select international jurisdictions:
| Legal Area / Law | Applies to Digital Resurrection? | Key Gaps / Observations |
| Article 21 – Right to Privacy | Partially – Privacy ends at death | No legal recognition of post-death data privacy in India |
| Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989) | Yes – Recognizes posthumous dignity | Applied to bodily dignity, not digital or virtual representation |
| CrPC – Plea Bargaining (Chapter XXI-A) | Indirectly – Only applies to living accused | Not designed for digital simulations or posthumous accountability |
| Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Section 12 | Yes – Apology may mitigate punishment | Doesn’t erase offence; context-specific |
| IT Act, 2000 – Sections 43A & 72 | Partially – Focuses on living individuals’ data protection | No rules for data consent or misuse after death |
| IPC – Sections 499 (Defamation) & 292 (Obscenity) | Partially – Can address harm if content is defamatory or obscene | Only applies after serious harm; no redress for emotional or ethical misuse |
| Copyright Act, 1957 | Partially – Protects creative works like audio/video | Doesn’t cover personal identity, likeness, or voice unless part of a work |
| Consumer Protection Act, 2019 | Partially – Covers AI services offered commercially | Protection is reactive and case-specific; no general rule for digital legacy |
| California (USA) – Right of Publicity | Yes – Protects identity use after death | Varies by state; patchy implementation |
| GDPR (EU) – Digital Death Directives (by State) | Partially – Some member states allow consent directives | GDPR itself doesn’t apply posthumously |
| South Korea – PIPA | Yes – Strict personal data protections | No specific law on post-death digital simulation |
| China – PIPL | No clear posthumous identity regulation | Law focuses on living users; ethics debates continue |
How Law Firms Can Help Navigate Digital Resurrection
In the absence of clear laws around digital resurrection, law firms can play a crucial role in helping individuals and families navigate uncharted legal, emotional, and ethical terrain.
Here’s how:
• Drafting Digital Legacy Clauses: Law firms can help clients proactively include clauses in
wills or contracts that govern how their digital likeness, voice, videos, texts, or personality
trait, can (or cannot) be used after death.
• Consent & Authorisation Guidance: In cases where families want to recreate a deceased
loved one, legal experts can advise on obtaining informed consent from legal heirs and
navigating potential disputes between family members.
• Data Protection & Privacy Compliance: Firms ensure that any personal data used to build
digital personas complies with data protection laws like the Information Technology Act,
2000 and proposed Digital Personal Data Protection Act, particularly around sensitive
biometric or facial data.
• Advising Start-ups & Tech Platforms: For companies offering AI resurrection tools, law
firms assist with drafting user agreements, disclaimers, and risk mitigation frameworks to
reduce liability and prevent misuse.
• IP Rights & Misuse Prevention: They can help protect against unauthorized commercial
exploitation of a deceased person’s voice or image by leveraging publicity rights, copyright, or personality rights, even in posthumous scenarios.
• Resolving Disputes & Litigation: In emotionally charged situations, such as when digital
recreations cause distress or disagreements, law firms step in to mediate, represent, or
litigate claims related to emotional harm, defamation, or unauthorised use.
• Policy & Compliance Design: For influencers, celebrities, or public figures, lawyers help
design comprehensive digital posthumous rights frameworks to protect their brand and legacy.
In short, law firms act as legal navigators in morally grey waters, balancing memory, consent, and rights in a world where the dead can be digitally revived, but the law hasn’t caught up yet.
Psychological & Cultural Dimensions
While legal and technological debates dominate conversations around digital resurrection, its psychological and cultural impacts are equally critical, yet often overlooked.
From a psychological standpoint, interacting with AI-generated simulations of the deceased may initially offer solace but can also lead to prolonged grief, emotional dependency, and unresolved trauma. Mental health experts warn that such interactions may delay the acceptance of loss, blur the distinction between reality and fabrication, and create a false sense of continued connection.
This is especially concerning in societies where open mourning and acceptance of death are essential parts of emotional healing. Culturally, India holds deep spiritual and familial values associated with death and remembrance. In many communities, rituals like shraddha, antim sanskar, and annual remembrance ceremonies are believed to guide the soul’s journey after death. Digitally reviving the dead could conflict with these beliefs, potentially being seen as a disruption to the soul’s peace or karmic cycle.
Furthermore, India’s collective memory culture, where stories, values, and memories of ancestors are passed down orally or through shared rituals, may be diluted or distorted by synthetic recreations. This raises the question: Do AI avatars replace authentic remembrance with curated simulations?
Including these dimensions in the debate makes the conversation more holistic, reflecting not just what law and tech can do, but also what society should allow based on its emotional and cultural fabric.
Metro Highlights — 2022 Crime Overview
Here’s a summary table of IPC & cybercrime data (2022) across major Indian metros, including relevant legal sections and charge-sheet rates:
| Metro City | Total IPC Cases (2022) | Crime Rate (Per Lakh) | Cybercrime Cases | Key Sections Invoked | Charge-sheet Rate (%) |
| Delhi | ~1,42,410 | 1,424.1 | ~8,000 | IPC 379 (Theft), 420 (Cheating), 376 (Rape); IT Act Sec 66 | 30.2% |
| Mumbai | ~50,158 | ~272.0 | ~5,000 | IPC 420 (Fraud), 392 (Robbery), 302 (Murder) | 45.0% |
| Bengaluru | ~40,000 | ~350.0 | 9,940 (Highest) | IPC 420; IT Act 66, 66C, 66D (Cyberfraud) | 22.6% |
| Hyderabad | ~30,000 | ~300.0 | 4,436 | IPC 419, 420; IT Act 66D (Impersonation & Cheating) | 25.4% |
| Ahmedabad | ~25,000 | ~250.0 | ~3,000 | IPC 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust), 420; IT Act 66 | 35.0% |
Conclusion
Digital resurrection presents a complex intersection of technology, law, and emotion. While its potential to comfort the bereaved is undeniable, it also raises serious concerns about privacy, consent, and the ethical limits of simulation. India’s legal framework currently lacks clear provisions on posthumous rights, making it imperative to initiate discourse and develop specific laws that address these emerging realities. Law firms have a growing role to play in advising clients on data rights, consent mechanisms, and potential liabilities in such cases. As AI continues to evolve, a proactive and culturally sensitive legal response is essential to safeguard both memory and dignity.
