High Court
Delhi HC notice to Govt on petition seeking cancellation of Ad cap violating pay channels licenses
NEW DELHI: Even as the Ad cap case is pending before it, the Delhi High Court has issued notice to the Information and Broadcasting Ministry on a fresh petition which has charged the ministry with dereliction of its duties to take action against offending Pay TV broadcasters for violating the terms and conditions of the licenses/permission for uplinking and downlinking permission/license.
Chief Justice G Rohini and Justice Jayant Nath asked the ministry to file its reply in four weeks.
Notice was issued only to the ministry, although the petition also listed 21st Century Fox Inc., Star India Private Limited, Discovery Communications Inc., and Discovery Networks Asia-Pacific (South Asia) as respondents.
Although the petition initially came up before a single bench on 19 May, it was directed to be posted before the court of the Chief Justice who is already hearing the other acap case filed by the News Broadcasters Association and others, and was heard on 27 May.
The petitioners Vikki Choudhry and Home Cable Network Pvt Ltd. have urged the court to issue directions for cancellation of the licences of Star India and Discovery Networks Asia Pacific as they are alleged to be in violation of the license conditions agreed by them under clause 5.2 of the uplinking guidelines and clause 5.1 of the downlinking guidelines, apart from the undertaking in the form of affidavit for the Up-linking and Down-linking Guidelines, and also in violation of the provisions of section 8 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1885. It is alleged that these two have deliberately violated the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 and rules thereunder.
The Court has also been urged to issue writ, order or direction to the two groups to deposit the revenue earned from the advertisement during the last three financial years (FY 2015-16, 2014-15, 2013-14) with the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Central Government constituted under the Excise Act, 1944
Directions have also been sought for the Electronic Media Monitoring Centre of the I & B Ministry to monitor all the Pay TV channels broadcast in India and report the violations of the prescribed Advertising Code under the rule 7 (10) and 7(11) of the CTN Rules, 1994 and the CTNR Act, 1995 on monthly/weekly basis.
The petition has alleged that the Pay TV broadcasters are in continuous violation of the terms of license under the uplinking and downlinking guidelines, and have in their weekly report admitted the same. It said “all the respondent channels are being parties as matter of illustration and ease of pleadings because the rule of minutage of advertisement 12 minutes per clock hour is in existence in several countries and these channels are strictly complying with such directives in other countries whereas they are in continued violations in India”.
It was pointed out that Star India is a 100 percent subsidiary of 21st Century Fox Inc. and Discovery Networks Asia Pacific is 100 percent subsidiary of Discovery Communications Inc.
It said the pay TV broadcasters are indulging into profiteering at the expense of poor ordinary consumers in blatant violation of important tariff structure contained in the Uplinking and Downlinking Guidelines and permissions granted by the Ministry.
The petitioner said it had given detailed representations to the ministry several times without getting any reply. The petitioner had written to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India in this connection but received a reply that the matter pertained to the ministry.
It has been pointed out that the Indian Broadcasting Foundation had withdrawn its petitions before the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal against the Standards of Quality of Service (duration of advertisements in television channels) Regulations 2012 and assured the Tribunal that its members would comply with the law.
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?
