High Court
No interim court order on telecast issue
NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court today refused to pass any interim order in a case filed by Zee Telefilms against the Indian cricket board.
The case, filed last week, came up for hearing today where the judge refused to give any interim relief to any of the parties, setting the next date of hearing on 31 August.
Responding to Zee Telefilms’ petition seeking the quashing of Board for Control of Cricket in India (BCCI)’s ‘invitation to tender’ (ITT) for telecast and broadcast rights for the next four years, the court had issued notices to the central government and the BCCI.
Today’s developments could mean that the cricket board can accept the bids by interested parties for domestic cricket rights. The last date for submission of bid is 26 August and, according to information available, no broadcaster has yet submitted any quotes preferring to wait and watch the legal developments.
In its petition, Zee has alleged that the eligibility conditions were framed by the BCCI to oust bidders from India.
According to ZTL counsel Pratibha M Singh, the present set of eligibility conditions for ITT was framed by the BCCI in such a manner so as to try to “exclude” the petitioner and/or other Indian television channels and favour ESPN Star Sports.
BCCI had released tenders for the telecast of 120-130 days of cricket between October 2005 to September 2009 last week. The TV tender document contains a three-year experience clause, which effectively rules out Zee from making a bid.
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?
