High Court
Bollywood associations & producers file legal suits against Times Now & Republic TV
NEW DELHI: The trouble surrounding the nation’s news broadcasting industry does not seem to be dying down. Last week, a few channels got embroiled in the TRP manipulation scandal, and now the Indian film fraternity appears to have joined forces against them.
Four Bollywood industry associations and 34 leading film producers have filed a civil suit before the Delhi High Court against Republic TV’s Arnab Goswami and Pradeep Bhandari, and Times Now’s Rahul Shivshankar and Navika Kumar, on their coverage of the drugs probe being carried out by the Narcotics Control Bureau in connection with the Sushant Singh Rajput death case.
The suit urges the court to restrain these channels – along with their editors and journalists – from making “irresponsible, derogatory and defamatory remarks” against Bollywood and the members of the film fraternity.
The producers have taken exception to several derogatory phrases used during the coverage such as ‘dirt,’ ‘filth,’ ‘scum,’ ‘druggies’ and expressions such as ‘it is Bollywood where the dirt needs to be cleaned,’ ‘all the perfumes of Arabia cannot take away the stench and the stink of this filth and scum of the underbelly of Bollywood,’ ‘This is the dirtiest industry in the country,’ and ‘cocaine and LSD drenched Bollywood’.
The suit states, "The livelihood of persons associated with Bollywood is being severely impacted by the smear campaign being run by the Defendants. This is in addition to the ongoing pandemic which has resulted in extreme revenues and work opportunity loss. The privacy of the members of Bollywood is being invaded, and their reputations are being irreparably damaged by painting the entire Bollywood as criminals, seeped in drug culture, and making being part of Bollywood as synonymous with criminal acts in the public imagination."
In their plea, the producers have asked Delhi High Court to pass directions ordering Times Now and Republic TV to withdraw, recall and take down all the defamatory content published by them against Bollywood. The suit also seeks that the channels and the four people mentioned abide by the provisions of the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks Rules, 1994.
While the producers don't call for blanket media gag in the Sushant Singh Rajput investigation, they want the court to stop reportage that violates the law. The suit further asks the channels not to conduct media trials of Bollywood personalities and to stop interfering with the privacy of those associated with Bollywood.
Reacting to the lawsuit, Times Now news editor Rahul Shivshankar said in a tweet that filing cases against journalists "that have only sought justice for those who are wronged" would set a bad precedent.
Cases against journalists of @TIMESNOW that have only sought justice for those who are wronged are a bad precedent. The mighty may think they can weaken the resolve of the fearless at #TIMESNOW but they are wrong. @aamir_khan @ajaydevgn @karanjohar @KanganaTeam @BeingSalmanKhan
— Rahul Shivshankar (@RShivshankar) October 12, 2020
Navika Kumar also took to Twitter, saying: "All the A-listers can come together but India will continue to fight for the truth. You can’t intimidate us."
If fighting for justice invites court cases, bring it on. All the a-listers can come together but India will continue to fight for the truth. You can’t intimidate us @TimesNow & can’t take away the viewers who believe in us. Let Truth prevail. @aamir_khan @iamsrk @karanjohar
— Navika Kumar (@navikakumar) October 12, 2020
High Court
Bombay HC likely to protect Kartik Aaryan’s personality rights
Actor seeks Rs 15 crore damages over AI misuse, deepfakes and merch
MUMBAI: In an age where faces can be faked and voices cloned, even stardom needs legal armour. The Bombay High Court has indicated it will pass an order safeguarding the personality and publicity rights of Bollywood actor Kartik Aaryan, following allegations of widespread digital misuse of his identity.
The matter, heard by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, centres on a plea filed by Aaryan seeking a broad John Doe injunction against 16 defendants, including e-commerce platforms, social media intermediaries and unidentified entities. The court noted the concerns raised and said appropriate orders would be issued.
At the heart of the case lies the growing threat of artificial intelligence-driven impersonation. Aaryan’s petition flags multiple instances of deepfake content circulating across platforms such as YouTube and Instagram, where his likeness has allegedly been used to create fabricated videos, including false romantic link-ups and objectionable scenarios designed to drive engagement.
In one particularly alarming example, the actor’s legal filing cites AI-generated visuals that falsely associate him with controversial global figures, including Jeffrey Epstein. The plea argues that such content not only misleads audiences but also causes serious reputational damage.
The concerns extend beyond content to commerce. The suit alleges that unauthorised merchandise bearing Aaryan’s name and image is being sold across platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart and Redbubble, without his consent. Additionally, the actor has raised red flags over AI-powered chatbots that mimic his voice and simulate conversations, warning of potential misuse in fraudulent activities.
Aaryan’s filing underscores that he is the registered proprietor of the trademark “Kartik Aaryan”, with his name, voice and likeness carrying significant commercial value. The unauthorised use of these attributes, the plea states, leads to “immediate and irreparable harm” to his goodwill.
Seeking both preventive and punitive relief, the actor has requested a permanent injunction restraining entities from exploiting his identity in any form be it name, voice, signature or distinctive dialogue style. He has also sought damages amounting to Rs 15 crore for alleged commercial misappropriation and reputational loss.
The case highlights a larger legal and cultural moment, where the lines between reality and replication are increasingly blurred. As AI tools become more accessible, courts are now being called upon to define the boundaries of identity in the digital age, where a face may be famous, but control over it is no longer guaranteed.
