High Court
Bombay HC orders conflicting parties to present submissions on the validity of sec11 of TRAI Act by 31 August
KOLKATA: Amid the ongoing tussle between the Broadcasters and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India( TRAI) regarding the amended new tariff order (NTO 2.0), the Bombay High Court’s division bench comprising of Justice A A Sayed, Justice Anuja Prabbhudesai heard the case on Thursday. The bench has ordered the parties to submit additional submissions on the validity of section 11 of the TRAI Act by 31 August.
The bench will hear the matter finally on 2, 7 and 8 September and will pronounce judgment following the hearings. As per today’s order, regulations will remain in force but no coercive steps can be taken by the regulator. It also added the Indian government is at liberty to file an affidavit on the validity of section 11 if needed.
Meanwhile, TRAI in a recent notification directed all broadcasters to comply with the provision of NTO 2.0 by 26 August, substituting the earlier timeline of 10 August as the final judgement on the case was expected on 24 August. The confusion regarding the implementation appears to persist as again the pronouncement of verdict has been postponed to next month.
Earlier this year, the power to issue tariff orders by TRAI was challenged by broadcasters when they filed a writ petition on NTO 2.0 against the authority. “Violation of the mandatory principles of Section 11(4) of the TRAI Act and thus acting in a matter that is inconsistent with the TRAI Act, 1997” – was mentioned as one of the broad grounds of the challenge.
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.
