High Court
TRAI can only regulate transmission, not broadcast material: Star tells Mds HC
NEW DELHI: The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India can only regulate the means of transmission and not take any decisions like pricing about the content, Star India contended today.
In his rejoinder in the petition by Star India and Vijay TV challenging the jurisdiction of TRAI to issue tariff orders on the ground that content came under the Copyright Act, Star India counsel P Chidambaram said TRAI was free to regulate the carriage side of broadcasting right up to the consumer.
Chidambaram was speaking after the arguments by TRAI counsel Saket Singh, and intervenors All India Digital Cable Federation counsel A R L Sundaresan and Videocon d2h counsel Vijay Raman.
Chidambaram said that in theory, TRAI could not price even the movie channels.
He said that the petitioners were not licencees under Section 2(1)(e) if the TRAI Act.
Responding to points made by TRAI, he said the reliance to the 2004 judgment pf the Delhi High Court in the Star India vs TRAI case was misplaced. This was because the principles of res judicata estoppel and acquiescence do not apply to the present case since the present petition is challenging the jurisdiction of TRAI itself. Even that judgement had only directed TRAI to freeze and not to fix prices, he contended.
He also said that TRAI was fixing prices genre-wise in the new tariff order and not channel wise.
While Chidambaram referred to the tariff orders of 2004 and 2007, he refrained from speaking about the tariff orders of 2012 and 2014.
He contended that once uplinked, broadcasting was complete and TRAI did not come into the picture in broadcast re-production rights.
Following the completion of his rejoinder, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi will present his rejoinder on behalf of Vijay TV. It is expected that the judges may reserve orders tomorrow.
Although the Supreme Court had in early May while staying the tariff order directed the Madras High Court to complete hearing within four weeks, the High Court had commenced the in the last week of June.
Meanwhile, TRAI TV reference interconnect offer (RIO) and Quality of service order (QoS) came into effect from 2 May following the order of the High Court.
Apart from the Tariff order which had originally been issued on 10 October last year, the regulator also issued the DAS Interconnect Regulations which had been issued on 14 October last year, and the Standards of Quality of Service and Consumer Protection (Digital Addressable Systems) Regulations which had been issued on 10 October last year.
The orders can be seen at:
http://trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Tariff_Order_English_3%20March_20…
http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/QOS_Regulation_03_03_2017.pdf
http://www.trai.gov.in/sites/default/files/Interconnection_Regulation_03…
Also Read: Decks cleared for TRAI tariff order implementation as HC declines stay (updated)
Star India case questioning TRAI jurisdiction over content postponed
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?
