High Court
Bombay HC asks TRAI to take instructions on deferment of NTO 2.0
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has asked the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to take instructions on deferment of (new tariff order) NTO 2.0 as they did for the 2017 regime before the Madras High Court. According to sources close to the development, the regulatory body has been asked to submit a deferment plan.
TRAI has to respond at the next hearing scheduled on 27 February. As per the sources, today’s hearing went on for more than two hours and TRAI will continue its argument tomorrow. At first, broadcasters argued for the interim relief which was slightly opposed by TRAI.
“The court asked why it can’t be deferred for one more month and within which the court can complete the hearing. If this can’t be deferred for one month, then court will decide on the interim relief tomorrow itself,” one of the sources said.
TRAI's counsels will take instructions from TRAI on the plan to defer NTO 2.0 just like they voluntarily deferred 2017 NTO before Madras HC.
At the beginning of 2020, the industry watchdog modified certain provisions (described as impugned provisions) of the new price regime which was implemented last year. TRAI prescribed twin conditions on pricing.
They were:
1. The sum of the a-la-carte rates of the pay channels (MRP)forming part of a bouquet shall in no case exceed one and a half times the rate of the bouquet of which such pay channels are a part.
2. The a-la-carte rates of each pay channel (MRP), forming part of a bouquet, shall in no case exceed three times the average rate of a pay channel of the bouquet of which such pay channel is a part.
Recently, TRAI asked broadcasters and distribution platform operators (DPOs) to take necessary steps to ensure a smooth rollout of the amended new tariff order from 1 March. Both broadcasters and distribution platform operators (DPOs) had been directed to publish the required information on their website to provide consumers sufficient time to exercise their choice of channels and bouquets before the implementation.
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?
