High Court
NTO 2.0: Bombay High Court adjourns case to 26 Feb
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has adjourned the ongoing case between the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and broadcasters on the new tariff order (NTO) to 26 February. During the last hearing , no interim relief had been granted.
Last time, the advocate for TRAI made a statement at the very beginning that the arguments should be based only on the petition and not on the rejoinder. Countering that, the advocate for Film & TV Producers Guild of India stated that there is nothing new in the rejoinder and everything is available in public domain.
He also touched upon the point of the newly imposed twin conditions levied in the amendment of new tariff order where one condition is the cap of Rs 12 in a bouquet, the other being the discount on channel bouquets to around 33 per cent.
Earlier, broadcasters were giving higher discounts pursuant to cross subsidies available by including smaller channels in its bouquets, which was totally in favour of consumers. He argued that if a consumer has to watch the so-called popular/niche channels (terms used by TRAI), he has to pay a higher price and it will increase his monthly bill.
He also continued that although they do not come under the direct purview of TRAI, the amendments in the tariff order can affect their revenue. As the regulatory body has put a cap of Rs 12 on pay channel that can be included in a bouquet, the broadcaster cannot charge more than Rs 12 for that pay channel in a bouquet.
The broadcaster has to pay huge amount to acquire content. Due to the regulations, if the broadcaster is not able to include it in a bouquet, it may prefer not to acquire such high priced content. Moreover, if broadcasters can not acquire quality content, the customer will lose.
While broadcasters have the flexibility to decide the price of its pay channel and the customer should be able to view quality content on his TV, both these conditions are violated by the order.
Last month, the Indian Broadcasting Foundation (IBF) along with others has filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court against the TRAI order. The petitioners mentioned that the as amendments which has been notified in “consumer interest," will have exactly the opposite effect, leading to crippling of the business of broadcasters and ultimate suffering of the consumer.
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?
