High Court
Bombay HC tells Mumbai police not to harass Hansa employees
NEW DELHI: Bombay high court told Mumbai police not to harass Hansa Group’s employees by calling them every day to the crime branch. This was in response to a plea moved by the research agency citing harassment faced by its staff allegedly on account of their reluctance to give false statements against Republic TV in the ongoing TRP scam case.
Media reports suggest that the bench of justices SS Shinde and MS Karnik have issued notices in the matter and granted the respondents – namely Mumbai police commissioner Parambir Singh and two other officers – liberty to file their reply. The court has also recorded a statement made on behalf of the police that Hansa's employees will only be called in twice a week till the next date of hearing.
The court will examine the submissions from both sides and added, "…in the interregnum, you cannot call them (Hansa Research) every day. They are complainants, not the accused."
Hansa Research in its plea alleged that the crime branch officials were pressuring its employees to “retract” a report, based on which Republic TV had claimed it was not among channels named in the TRP scam case. They were repeatedly called to the crime branch and made to wait for hours on end from October 12 onwards. The petition named assistant police inspector (Crime Branch) Sachin Vaze, Mumbai police commissioner Parambir Singh, assistant CP and chief investigating officer Shashank Sandbhor, Maharashtra government and the CBI as respondents.
Read more news on Hansa Research
"This is a unique situation where the first informant in the crime is being harassed by the investigating agency and treated like an accused only for a false statement …petitioners are being used by police and media to attack each other," the plea said.
The petitioners stated that they told crime branch officers repeatedly that they could not confirm or deny the report since they were not aware what the ‘Hansa report’ cited by Republic TV was, as the channel had not sought their permission or informed them about using the report, and only parts of the report were telecast. They said that they will have to see the entire document to ascertain its veracity.
On 6 October, Hansa Research Group lodged an FIR against its employee Vishal Bhandari after he was found allegedly accepting payments illegally to make certain households watch specific TV channels to fudge TRP. Several arrests have been made in the case.
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?
