High Court
Bombay high court permits persons above 65 years to work on film, TV sets
MUMBAI: The Bombay high court has quashed Maharashtra government’s order for age limit on set. After constant appeal from the Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association (IMPPA) and Cine And TV Artistes' Association (CINTAA), the high court has finally allowed all people above 65 years of age associated with the entertainment industry to resume work on the sets of films and TV shows.
A bench of chief justice Dipankar Datta and justice AS Gadkari, while hearing two petitions filed by the Indian Motion Pictures Producers Association (IMPPA) and actor Pramod Pandey, have taken this decision.
The division bench of judges has allowed all producers, technicians, workers and artists to work. However, they will have to strictly adhere to the advisories which are applicable to all senior citizens as is applicable in case of all other citizens in the state.
Earlier the high court had questioned the state government on the concerned matter and asked how it can stop senior citizens from working and earning a livelihood.
The court had, during the hearing, appointed senior counsel Sharad Jagtiani as amicus curiae in the matter. IMPPA and television artist Promod Pande were represented by advocate Ashok Saraogi.
According to IFTPC chairman TV wing JD Majethia there is certain ambiguity in the order. It is Bombay high court’s judgement but the film and television fraternity will also need to have clarification from Maharashtra government. He adds, “The major challenge in this issue is that insurance companies are not giving insurance cover for people above the age of 60 years. And as per the protocols, every member present on the set needs to have Covid2019 insurance cover. We will reach Maharashtra government for clarity, we will also speak to our lawyers to understand the order and will appeal to the government to revise copy.”
Earlier IMPPA President TP Aggarwal had stated that that for all senior producers, directors, actors and technicians the creative medium is the only source of income and the guideline was not practical and was not fair as in no other profession this condition was imposed. After sending requests many times, the association had to move the high court for demanding the rights of earning one’s livelihood for these senior people from the fraternity.
Apart from that, Cine And TV Artistes' Association (CINTAA) senior vice president and actor Manoj Joshi had met the governor of Maharashtra Bhagat Singh Koshyari to discuss this issue. CINTAA had also sent letters to chief minister Uddhav Thackeray, minister Subash Desai and former chief minister Devendra Fadnavis.
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?
