High Court
Calcutta HC extends stay order on Digicable Comm’s licence cancellation till 28 Nov
KOLKATA: Granting relief to Digicable Comm Services once again, the Calcutta High Court has further extended the interim stay on the cancellation of the registration of the Kolkata-based multi system operator (MSO), till 28 November.
As reported earlier, the MSO had got a stay order on the cancellation of the registration of its license till 29 August, which was later extended till 31 October.
The case was again up for hearing today. “The matter was heard and the stay has been further extended till 28 November 2014,” said Digicable Comm Services VP – operations and technology Lokesh Agarwal.
Around two months ago, the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) had cancelled the registration of Digicable Comm.
Digicable counsel had earlier argued in the court that the MIB only stated the reason for cancellation of registration as not receiving security clearance from the Home Ministry. However, it did not give the reason for denial of security clearance. The Ministry counsel, in his response said that the reason for non- clearance cannot be disclosed to Digicable for security reasons.
The court observed that when the MSO received its DAS licence in 2013, it was subject to security clearance from Home Ministry and the same has been denied in the order passed last month. Subsequently, Digicable Comm was asked to stop operations within 15 days.
Digicable Comm however appealed to both the Home Ministry and High Court in order to put a stay on the cancellation.
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?
