High Court
Govt claims law & order worries over CAS implementation
NEW DELHI / MUMBAI: The Indian government continues to be in a bind over conditional access system (CAS) and its implementation in Mumbai and Kolkata with both the cities refusing to toe the Central government line.
Uppermost on the minds of bureaucrats in the information and broadcasting ministry is the issue of law and order, which may go into a tailspin if the Centre pushes ahead with its diktat.
Pointing out that a law and order problem may crop up, with some people (read the Shiv Sena) actively against CAS in Mumbai especially, a senior I&B ministry official said, “We are studying the situation and this would be discussed in the meeting of the chief secretaries (of the states where CAS is being sought ot be implemented) on 15 September.”
The official also said that the Centre cannot push beyond a point on CAS rollout unless the state government ensures no violence or untoward incidents would take place. “For set-top boxes it’s not worth having riots,” the official half-jokingly said. Half-jokingly or otherwise, such alarmist statements do not exactly instil confidence in the government’s ability to push through CAS.
In Mumbai meanwhile, Maharashtra deputy chief minister Chhagan Bhujbal (who is also the state home minister in charge of law and order), true to his shoot from the lip style, has said he sees CAS as a serious security threat.
The Press Trust of India quotes Bhujbal as saying, “CAS will enable sending messages to a particular individual and it can pose a danger to the city’s security which is already facing threat from terrorist outfits,” in his communique to I&B minister Ravi Shankar Prasad.
The farcical addition to the CAS imbroglio aside, the I&B ministry is also hoping against hope that various CAS-related cases that are pending in the Delhi courts will deliver decisions favourable to the government. This would provide the Central government with a stronger case to “persuade” the state governments with.
Though, it is another story that Delhi was denotified from the CAS rollout map at the behest of the ruling Bharatiya Janata party leaders only on the plea that state elections are round the corner and introduction of CAS would have a negative effect on BJP’s bid to wrest Delhi from the Congress.
What has not received much attention in the media around the denotification however, is that CAS has not just been deferred in Delhi (as is is the general assumption), it is officially and legally off the CAS rollout map. According to a notification dated 31 August amending the 10 July notification setting 1 September as the CAS rollout date, Delhi has been DELETED from its ambit. Therefore, even after the elections are completed in the capital, only if a fresh notification is issued will the capital be part of the CAS rollout plan.
A case against the denotification of Delhi on CAS has been filed by Zee Group cable arm, Siti Cable, and the case is up for hearing on 17 September. The hearing of another case filed by Cable Networks’ Association at the Delhi High Court too, is pending hearing and final disposal.
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?
