High Court
Bombay High Court suspends Salman Khan’s five-year sentence
NEW DELHI: A large number of filmmakers in Mumbai heaved a sigh of relief when the Bombay High Court stayed the five-year sentence imposed on actor Salman Khan by a Sessions court two days earlier for killing a homeless man in a 2002 hit-and-run case.
The 49-year old actor was however asked by the High Court to re-apply for fresh bail before the Sessions Court.
Khan had managed to get a two-day reprieve on 6 May itself on the ground that the judgment had not been made available to him.
High Court judge A M Thipsay suspended Khan’s sentence after an initial hearing on his appeal at which the superstar’s lawyers argued that the trial court had not considered all the evidence on hand during the trial.
Had he gone to jail, Bollywood sources said around six films would have been affected as they are already in the pipeline and have an investment of more than Rs 200 crore.
The dead man, 38-year-old Noor Ullah Khan, was among five people who were run over in the incident. Late on the night of 28 September, 2002, Khan’s Toyota Land Cruiser hit the American Express bakery in the Bandra area of Mumbai.
Khan was arrested on 28 September, 2002, and released the same day. He was charged under Section 304 (2) with culpable homicide not amounting to murder, a charge that was struck down by the Bombay High Court in 2003. This Bombay High Court order was set aside by the Supreme Court in 2003, paving the way for the case to being re-examined.
Khan had sought to say his driver was behind the wheel, but Sessions Judge DW Deshpande said the actor was driving the car and was under the influence of alcohol at the time.
One of Bollywood’s busiest stars having appeared in more than 80 Hindi-language films, Khan’s jail sentence is bound to affect the film projects he was working in.
Known for turning out at least one hit every year, Khan’s films like Dabangg, Ready, Bodyguard, Ek Tha Tiger, Maine Pyar Kiya and Hum Aap Ke Hain Kaun have been huge commercial hits.
The prosecution alleged that Khan had been driving the car while drunk, both of which charges the actor denied in court in March. But many witnesses disagreed.
A constable attached to Khan’s security detail had said in a statement to the police that the “drunk” actor had lost control of the car. The policeman died in 2007 of tuberculosis.
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?
