High Court
CAS in its present form is an evil conspiracy: Anil Parab
MUMBAI: “I request you to be united in the face of media reports that the multi system operators and broadcasters are trying to adopt various strategies such as ‘divide and rule’, ‘money power’ to woo you. This is battle for survival.”
Thus spake Shiv Sena Vibhag Pramukh Anil Parab who dons multiple hats – the CODA (Cable Operator and Distributor Association) president and the only face of cable operators in the government appointed CAS implementation committee is the proprietor of Dattatray Cable in suburban Mumbai.
The man who organised a “historic” meeting of Mumbai-based cable operators won laurels and words of praise from all the top Sena leaders including Shiv Sena working president Uddhav Thackeray, Subhash Desai, Sanjay Nirupam and Vilas Awhsat amongst others. Of course, thousands of Mumbai based cable operators who filled two auditoriums of Bandra’s Rang Sharda and also the streets outside cheered him as he rose to address the gathering.
Parab said: “This is the third meeting organised by CODA. We decided to organise this meeting because top leaders such as Balasaheb and Uddhavji wanted to address the cable fraternity. After all, these self-made entrepreneurs were responsible for uplifting themselves and several people from the lower socio-economic classes who were ravaged by unemployment from the the closure of mills and other such reasons.”
Blasting the multi-system operators (MSOs), Parab said: “These MSOs, who are dominating the business at present, wrested control from the cable operators. The unsuspecting cable operators who were busy with internal wrangles didn’t even realise the gravity of the situation as the wily MSOs gained predominance. In fact, the MSOs used to pretend to be the representatives of the cable operators in the government-appointed CAS task force. But, they were only concerned about furthering their own interests.”
When questioned about why the Sena took up cudgels on behalf of the cable operators so late in the day, Parab said: “When former I&B minister Sushma Swaraj mooted the idea of CAS, it seemed like an attractive idea. The hidden dirt of CAS came to the fore only when issues came up during the implementation process. The Sena realised that CAS in its present form is an evil conspiracy that would hurt operators and consumers.”
“We realised that a day will come when the cable operator would be told that he would no longer be needed. The MSO and broadcaster nexus would establish contact with the consumer directly. No one was willing to back the last mile operator but Sena supremo Balasaheb raised a voice to protest against this kind of a CAS that would hurt cable operators and consumers. After he gave his clarion call, I decided that the first step was to forge unity and we all united under the banner of CODA,” said Parab, amidst cheers and claps.
Referring to his experiences while representing cable operators in the government appointed task force meeting, Parab said: “The I&B officials seemed to toe the line of the MSOs and the pay broadcasters at the CAS task force meetings. In the very first meeting that I attended, I raised the real issues and there was a lot of discomfort amongst the CAS task force members. I proclaimed that the task force would never meet again and my words came true. Then, the ministry appointed the CAS implementation task force and I was the only member representing the cable operators; the MSOs had five representatives whereas the broadcasters had 12 representatives on the 18 member committee. But, I made sure that pertinent and difficult questions were asked. The backing of Balasaheb and our efforts ensured that CAS has still not been implemented in Mumbai despite umpteen efforts by the I&B officials.”
Parab claims that the Sena has managed to stem the rot by proclaiming that CAS would rollout in Mumbai only when the cable operators say that they are ready! “Now, after they say anything the other implementation task force representatives look at me for approval,” claimed Parab, to applause from cable operators.
Blasting the I&B officials and minister RS Prasad, Parab questioned: “I wonder why the I&B officials are scared of the pay broadcasters? The government appointed CAS task force undertook a study for calculating the costs of the last mile operator and arrived at the ridiculous figure of Rs 46 per month for free to air channels. How come they didn’t undertake a similar study before arriving at an unacceptable figure of Rs 72 per month for FTA channels? Why can’t they regulate the pay TV broadcasters?”
Referring to the hapless consumers, Parab said: “People in Mumbai pay anything between Rs 150 and Rs 225 per month. Why should the government burden them with monthly cable rates that are double or trice these rates for viewing the same number of channels? How will the slum dwellers afford these rates?”
While taking about recent efforts by MSOs to woo cable operators, Parab said: “I have been reading media reports in some of the financial newspapers that the MSOs have announced schemes to lure cable operators; divide and rule policies. I have read reports that MSOs have offered Hyundai Sonatra cars amongst others. But, these ploys will not work. The Mumbai cable operator fraternity is united under the CODA banner. CODA will not allow CAS to happen in Mumbai unless Balasaheb Thackeray gives his consent.”
Well, that is the final word as of today on the possibility of CAS rollout in Mumbai.
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?
