ABSTRACT
Every death today leaves behind an estate of pixels as well as property. Photographs, correspondence, cryptocurrency wallets, social media profiles and, increasingly, synthetic recreations of a person’s voice now survive the individual who created them. Indian law has responded only in fragments. Section 14 of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 permits a data principal to nominate a representative to exercise data rights after death, but stops short of treating digital data as inheritable property. The Indian Succession Act, 1925, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and Muslim personal law were drafted for tangible and straightforwardly intangible property and struggle to accommodate assets that are simultaneously personal data, contractual licences and economic wealth. Constitutional jurisprudence recognises that dignity survives death while remaining ambivalent about privacy, and the nascent doctrine on posthumous personality rights is internally inconsistent. This paper synthesises Indian statutory, constitutional and judicial material with comparative learning from the United States and the European Union to argue that India requires a unified statutory hierarchy–modelled loosely on the American Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act–reconciling nominee authority, heir entitlement and platform discretion, while separately addressing the unregulated commercial and synthetic exploitation of the dead.
Keywords: Digital remains; post-mortem privacy; Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023; digital inheritance; personality rights; succession law; comparative data protection; artificial intelligence and deepfakes