High Court
Delhi HC dismisses 9X Media, B4U Broadband, TV Vision petition challenging DD Free Dish e-auction
MUMBAI: The Delhi High Court has dismissed the petition filed by 9X Media, B4U and MASTiii against the DD Free Dish e-auction. Within a few days of the e-auction recommencement notice, the broadcasters approached the court as they felt the base prices are very high for small players.
Senior lawyer Amit Sibal appearing for the petitioner 9XM argued that the music channels were free to air channels and they were not collecting any subscription amount. Hence, those channels could not be classified in the same bucket as general entertainment channels (GECs), and other channels.
The revised guidelines of DD Free Dish auction says that differential pricing for genre (language) will be based on principle of higher reserve price for genre (language) with greater commercial potential. Sibal argued that the guiding norm has not been followed as the music channels have been placed in the same bucket as sports and GECs. He contended that the commercial potential of sports channels is greater than music channels.
Sibal also argued that the commercial potential of music channels was much lower than news channels and yet the reserve price for news channels has been fixed at Rs 7 crore and music channels have been fixed at Rs 10 crore. He also referred to the financial statement of the petitioners to contend that they were loss making while the news channels were making profits.
Earlier 9X Media mentioned in the petition that it is a loss-making entity with losses of Rs 7.81 crore and negative earnings per share and such a decision could adversely impact its business. Rajeev Sharma on behalf of Prasar Bharati pointed out the total revenue of 9XM for the financial year 2018 was around Rs 146.12 crore including Rs 138.71 crore as revenue from operations. He submitted that the reserve price of a slot was a very small fraction of the revenue. Sharma also added that the petitioners were already paying Rs 8 crore and the reserve price was only 25 per cent more than the existing price.
Talking note of the argument, Justice Vibhu Bakhru said that the court does not agree to the argument that the reserve price fixed there under would amount to disabling an entrepreneur from carrying on the business of broadcasting a music channel. He also added that DD Free Dish is not the only platform to air the channels.
Justice Bakhru also asserted that it will not be appropriate to enter into a controversy as to the assessment of the commercial potential of various genres or channels. The court also added that the question of fixing a reserve price is a matter of commercial discretion of the public broadcaster Prasar Bharati.
“Prasar Bharti’s commercial decision to fix the prices is not amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, unless it is established that the same is so arbitrary or so unreasonable that no reasonable person could possibly take such a decision,” the judgement also said.
Justice Bakhru also found Sibal’s contention that that petitioners are not challenging the policy but the implementation is unpersuasive as the petitioners are seeking to challenge the fixation of reserve price which itself is a matter of policy.
The new policy guidelines has kept five buckets for e-auction of MPEG2 slots. Bucket A+ has been kept for Hindi GECs and teleshopping channels with a reserve price of Rs 15 crore, and Bucket A has been dedicated to Hindi movie channels with a reserve price of Rs 12 crore.
Hindi music, sports, and Bhojpuri GEC and movie come under Bucket B which has a reserve price of Rs 10 crore. All news & current affairs (Hindi), news & current affairs (English) and news & current affairs (Punjabi) channels fall under the category of Bucket C which with a reserve price of Rs 7 crore. The Bucket D with lowest reserve price of Rs 6 crore will comprise of all other remaining genres/language channels.
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?
