High Court
Madras HC dismisses Marans’ plea; I&B asks MHA to clarify on security nod denial
NEW DELHI: The Madras High Court has dismissed petitions by Sun TV and Kal Comm Pvt. Ltd. seeking stay on the attachment of its assets by Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with Aircel-Maxis case.
Justice M. Sathyanarayanan said the Supreme Court was monitoring the case and the High Court was not inclined to entertain the petitions.
Meanwhile, it is learnt that in reply to a letter from the Information and Broadcasting (I&B) Ministry seeking clarifications on rejection of security clearance to Sun TV, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has reiterated its position. The I&B Ministry is understood to have highlighted the issue relating to freedom of the media.
That apart, the I&B Ministry may be writing again, pointing to the Madras High Court order of September last year, which had commented strongly against the Ministry for cancelling the multi system operator (MSO) license to Sun TV Network’s subsidiary Kal Cables. The observation had come in a case relating to denial of security clearance as the Maran brothers were facing criminal cases.
As was reported earlier by Indiantelevision.com, the refusal to grant a license could result in the closure of 33 channels of the group, FM channels and print outlets.
During the hearing of the case today, the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the properties were acquired much before the investigating agencies commenced their probe into the Aircel-Maxis case and questioned why properties of other firms accused in the case have not been attached.
Additional Solicitor General G. Rajagopalan contended that the Supreme Court was monitoring the developments in the case and had also observed that any other court hearing the matter would impede the investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the ED.
Following the attachment of two of its properties by the ED on 31 March, Sun TV and Kal Comm Pvt. Ltd. moved the Madras High Court seeking to quash the order. The ED had earlier questioned the maintainability of the petitions in view of the Supreme Court’s directions in the case.
The Supreme Court in a blanket order of 10 February, 2011 and 11 April, 2011 restricted any court from entertaining petitions in the matter.
High Court
Bombay High Court questions AI celebrity deepfakes in Shilpa Shetty case
Justice questions legality of unconsented AI personas, platforms directed to respond.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court just put AI on the witness stand because when a chatbot starts chatting as Shilpa Shetty without asking, even the bench wants to know who gave permission. The Bombay High Court on Wednesday expressed serious concerns over the legality of artificial intelligence tools that simulate celebrity personalities without consent, during a personality rights suit filed by actor Shilpa Shetty.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, hearing the matter, questioned platforms that allow users to interact with AI-generated versions of actors without authorisation. The court noted that one accused AI chatbot website continued using Shetty’s personality without permission, prompting the judge to ask about the legal basis for such operations.
When the lawyer for the AI company argued that the system relied on algorithms and did not require celebrity consent, Justice Deshmukh challenged the platform’s right to recreate and make public a person’s identity in this manner. She observed that while users uploading photographs raised one set of issues, AI systems generating content based on recognised personalities posed distinct legal and ethical questions especially when the platform itself acknowledged the content was not real.
The court directed the platform to file a detailed response explaining its position.
The case involves Shetty seeking restrictions on more than 30 platforms including e-commerce websites and AI services accused of hosting or enabling misuse of her image and circulation of deepfake content.
The Bench also raised concerns about Youtube commentary videos discussing the ongoing proceedings involving Shetty and her husband, questioning whether unverified discussions could malign parties without journalistic checks.
Counsel for Google, Tenor and the AI entity informed the court that flagged infringing URLs had been removed. Shetty’s team disputed this, leading the court to allow her to file an application alleging non-compliance if links remained active.
Tenor objected to the broad injunction sought, arguing it functions as an intermediary GIF platform without capacity for proactive monitoring. The court directed Tenor to file an affidavit opposing the order.
E-commerce platforms including Amazon stated they had removed unauthorised listings using Shetty’s name and image, and would continue to act on specific notifications.
The court reiterated that directions for intermediaries would operate on a “take-down on notice” basis, requiring removal of infringing content once flagged.
As deepfakes blur the line between real and rendered, the Bombay High Court isn’t just hearing a case, it’s asking the bigger question: in the age of AI avatars, who really owns your face?
