High Court
After HC refuses to intervene, CAS effectively in force in Mumbai
MUMBAI: The Central government must have been hoping that the courts would deliver a ruling on conditional access that would enable it to do what it had abjectly failed to do thus far – enforce CAS in recalcitrant cities like Mumbai.
In the event, a two-judge division bench of the Mumbai High Court headed by Chief Justice CL Thakker still left it to the government “to do or not to do” on whether CAS should be enforced in Mumbai or not.
While indiantelevision.com is still awaiting a final copy of the judges’ order, the legal interpretation appears to be that the court is not coming in the way of the implementation of CAS. The court has clearly said though that no interim order will be passed either for or against CAS. Therefore, by extension what it means is that CAS is in force as per the latest government notification
This is significant because the ten-day grace period for CAS implementation that had been granted in Mumbai on account of the Ganesh Chaturthi festival ends today. As per the original schedule, Zone 1 in Mumbai, Kolkata and the whole of Chennai were to become CAS-delivered from 1 September.
In effect, this means that the MSOs are technically well within their legal rights to enforce CAS in the designated Zone 1 area of south Mumbai. And if the government were to abide by its own notification, it would mean that the MSOs were in fact liable for prosecution if they did not black out all pay channels not delivered through a set top box.
Of course there is the “small matter” of the Shiv Sena being opposed “tooth and claw” to CAS at this juncture so whether anyone is willing to take on the tiger is the moot point.
NEXT HEARING OF CABLE CASE IN JANUARY
Coming back to the High Court ruling, around eight petitions that were clubbed together under the “cable case” were heard today. The High Court bench, after listening to arguments from all sides, proclaimed that the various petitions will be heard in January 2004.
The court has admitted all the petitions; but proposed to take its time to hear the various arguments. Sources say that the court didn’t want to pass any ruling at this stage because the process of CAS rollout is currently on and the situation is still unclear.
Today, the government’s counsel and additional solicitor-general of Maharashtra SB Jaisinghani proclaimed in the court that the Central government has merely given an extension of 10 days to Mumbai’s cable trade due to Ganesh Chaturthi. As far as the Central government is concerned, the government lawyer specified that CAS is already on in the notified areas of Mumbai.
The lawyers representing the multi-system operators (MSO) claimed that their clients have invested a lot of money on setting up infrastructure for the conditional access system (CAS). “The court admitted all the petitions and refused to stay the implementation of CAS in the city,” says Janak Dwarkadas who represents Hinduja MSO INCableNet.
NGO Consumer Action Network (CAN) president advocate Ahmad M Abdi says: “I raised this point about the fact the CAS rollout is restricted to south Mumbai. There is no protection for the cable consumers in other zones who are being discriminated against.”
BJP member of parliament Kirit Somaiya’s lawyer Chaitanya Dhruve Mehta said that his client’s stand has been validated because the government has gone ahead with CAS implementation. “All the petitions have been admitted and the court has decided to stand by the Central government’s decision to go ahead with CAS. Post CAS, consumers will have to pay for whatever they choose to see. The minimum rate for watching free-to-air channels and certain top pay channels will be less than Rs 150 per month,” adds Mehta.
CAN president Abdi adds: “The recent amendments to the Cable TV (Regulation) Networks Act 1995 state that errant cable operators violating the provisions of the act are liable for prosecution as the same has been declared cognisable offences; wherein the local police may initiate appropriate action against the errant cable operator.”
Some cable operators have taken the judgment to mean that they are no longer bound by the earlier injunction on their raising rates before CAS was rolled out.
Till the copy of the order is in hand though, what all this exactly means will have to wait.
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?
